I remember a previous comment thread where someone pointed to the horrible acts committed in atheistic humanist states. The response then was, "yes but those weren't real atheist humanist states." Is it really that difficult to see that people do bad things and use good things to explain them? Sometimes it's misusing Christianity or Islam or capitalism or whatever, but we use these things to try to justify our bad acts. Sorry, I don't want to be that guy in the comment thread, but I'm curious to hear your explanation.

Although I am not religious, I frankly find the impulse to villify religion vulgar.

Respect humanity enough to give them some measure of responsibility for their own interpretations and actions, good or ill.

And then take some for your own.

Isn't it nice to listen to an interview in a straight question-and-answer format without all the badgering and interrupting that marks most interview programs?

I find finding impulses vulgar vulgar.

whb said: "I remember a previous comment thread where someone pointed to the horrible acts committed in atheistic humanist states. The response then was, "yes but those weren't real atheist humanist states." Is it really that difficult to see that people do bad things and use good things to explain them? Sometimes it's misusing Christianity or Islam or capitalism or whatever, but we use these things to try to justify our bad acts. Sorry, I don't want to be that guy in the comment thread, but I'm curious to hear your explanation."

My response: The evil in question is faith, believing in something without evidence. Faith is not limited to gods and spirits and religions -- it undergirds all sorts of movements, especially when people follow a leader or a cause without evidence that the leader or cause is correct.

One could make the argument that underlying the 'atheistic regimes' (i.e. Communist regimes) that caused such destruction was in fact the same phenomenon that made the Taliban so despicable -- an ardent, uncompromising, unquestioned faith. Someone who doubts and questions everything, especially authority, is unlikely to go out and kill someone who has a different ideology or doctrinal stance, or to unquestioningly obey a leader who commands such action. A consistent skeptic isn't generally going to be as gung-ho as a committed believer about the poorly concieved five year plan or crusade.

Faith was the evil Dawkins was talking about and villifying, and faith was just as central to the Communist regimes of yesteryear as it is to many strains of religion.

I think J.D. has made a good point. I would add that atheism by itself is not an ideology. So it is not a matter of interpretation as to what the right atheist ideology is. Atheism is simply a lack of belief. It wasn't by virtue of atheism that Communist regimes committed their atrocities. As J.D. said it was the FAITH that communist had in the party and what they thought was the inevitability of a world communist order.

The difference in the Religious case is that it is directly by virtue of some of the doctrines of the religion that the atrocities are committed. I repeat. Atheism has no doctrines. It is simply the a lack of belief in God or Gods.

1. Interviews like this (and like the documentary series itself) are only available to Americans online; such discussions are verboten in media formats that target a larger audience.

2. It’s Sunday morning in America and I woke up to Christian preachers on ABC, UPN, Fox, and my local station (I don’t get cable); all telling me how to be behave and what God’s will is.

I consider both of these circumstances to be vulgar.

What a reasonable man Dawkins is - I wonder how long before someone feels their deity would like them to assassinate him? It will be a great shame. By the way, Beethoven's Eroica symphony was not religiously inspired - the hero involved was originally Napoleon, but LvB later preferred to say it was the heroic human spirit he had written the music for, having been disillusioned by Napoleon crowning himself emperor of France.

I find myself in agreement with Mr. Dawkins on many ideas, but when it comes to the question of "morality," I feel that he is weak and bites the bullet. He wishes to submit morality and ethics to a "general liberal consensus," as though truth were democratic. I think that with the death of God, perhaps the "liberal consensus" may be our only recourse for a moral code, but I find it to be wholly unsatisfactory. The problem of morality and ethics becomes extremely difficult once God has been denied. I think Mr. Dawkins is too flippant on this issue.

Now, do not take this to mean that I am a theist; on the contrary, I am a nontheist. But I have a serious problem with other nontheists who flippantly deal with the problem of morality. It is a serious challenge, and I feel that many attempted "answers" (Dawkins' "liberal consensus" included) are disingenuous and contrary to these thinkers' commitment to intellectual honesty.

The problem of morality and ethics becomes extremely difficult once God has been denied. I think Mr. Dawkins is too flippant on this issue.

I did not find Dawkin's answers to the interviewer's questions to be "flippant." I found his answers to be heartfelt and well thought out.

I am a nontheist.

hmmmmm..

But I have a serious problem with other nontheists who flippantly deal with the problem of morality

I don't find anyone here to be dealing with this subject in a flippant manner. What do you mean?

Explain yourself please. I cannot unravel the logic of your thought process.

"The problem of morality and ethics becomes extremely difficult once God has been denied" What is it exactly that makes it difficult? Is it fear of displeasing the God, of going to hell? How fucking pathetic is that if it takes fear of punishment to behave ethically. Does that mean if all of sudden everyone knew there was no God ethical behavior would disappear. What an absurd notion that is.

The statement of "real religion" instantly reminds me of Flew's No True Scotsman Fallacy. Argument: "Ach! No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge." Reply: "But my uncle Angus likes sugar with his porridge." Rebuttal: "Ah yes, but no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."

Just another logical fallacy used by people trying to rationalize things away in the face of critics.

wikipedia has a good article regarding the No true scotsman fallacy, for those interested in further reading.

Yeah, and what is the "true" meaning of the Bible? Which parts are to be taken literally and which parts of the Bible are allegorical and open to interpretation? Who decides all of this, and by what standards is one opinion superior to the other?

I was not speaking to the true meaning of the bible, but rather "real religion" in the context of Flew's argrument. There are two different definitions of real religion, in my view, one being religion as a personal relationship with a god, the other being on a larger scale incorporating other people's beliefs, the organization of society, and so forth. Therefore, the notion of what "real religion" is depends on the definition of religion that one subscribes.

As an aside, I think that the entire bible is open to interpretation, as it may serve as a guide for an individual seeking to have a relationship with some diety. Conflict arises when individuals impose their interpretation on others as fact, or rationalize actions, deemed by society as a whole to be improper, as a facet of their religion.

Therefore, the notion of what "real religion" is depends on the definition of religion that one subscribes. Ah, I see. So the term "religion" is then basically meaningless according to what you just said.

The point is: your personal definition of religion and what it means to you, and my personal definition of religion and what it means to me, may be different. The fact that two people have different definitions, by no means renders the word as meaningless.

Language evolves and the "meaning" of words evolve. And maybe the debate over what real religion is will eventually change the meaning of the word religion. Perhaps it will incorporate those malicious deeds done in the name of religion, and then perhaps it will not.

The No True Scotsman fallacy comes into play when one person has a different definition than another,and one person states that the other's definition is not "true". It is semantics, essentially.

What is it exactly that makes it difficult? Is it fear of displeasing the God, of going to hell? How fucking pathetic is that if it takes fear of punishment to behave ethically.

Ethics becomes difficult in the absence of God for the very reason that truth becomes difficult. With the death of God, so, too, comes the death of truth - moral/ethical truth included. The problem becomes: upon what foundation do we justify our moral and ethical claims and they be generalized to include persons other than one's self? "Liberal consensus" is hardly a justification and leaves the question of truth to democratic agreement. If "liberal consensus" is not good in adjudicating scientific truth (recall: 50+% of Americans doubt evolution), then why is it satisfactory in matters of ethics? It may be historically the case that majority opinions ruled the prejudices of past generations, but now being aware of this, it would seem that we would seek to avoid such an outlook. Mr. Dawkins, however, with his suggestion of "liberal consensus" seems to endorse ignorance en masse, if only because it is held en masse.

Does that mean if all of sudden everyone knew there was no God ethical behavior would disappear. What an absurd notion that is.

In the absence of God, the very meaning of "ethical" becomes suspect. Here, I do not mean "God" in the sense of Yahweh or Jesus or any other particular understanding, but rather the concept "God," which might be properly understood as "Truth." With the abandonment of God comes the abandonment of Truth. Morality and ethics, as those elements of human life that govern and order interaction then become problematic.

Of course, by consensus, it is very possible for someone to claim that they are "ethical," judged against the widely-held ethical notions in his culture. But what is Ethical? Is it that which 50+% of the population agree upon? Is it something else? Whatever you may determine it to be, upon what foundatin does your assumption rest and is your ethical code generalizable to others? Without God (or Truth), you will find that this question is extremely difficult to answer.

And to the poster who questioned my use of the term "flippant":

I say that it is flippant because it is not carefully thought out, for reasons I outline above.

This is meaningless drivel. "Ethics becomes difficult in the absence of God for the very reason that truth becomes difficult. With the death of God, so, too, comes the death of truth - moral/ethical truth included." And where is it exactly that you get "God's Truth" and how do you know it is from God and not man? Maybe Nietzsche can add something to the discussion of what is real.

The point is: your personal definition of religion and what it means to you, and my personal definition of religion and what it means to me, may be different. The fact that two people have different definitions, by no means renders the word as meaningless.

Well, I don't have a "personal" definition of religion. I pretty much go by the dictionary definition of words. If we just start making up our own personal definitions, how in the hell are we supposed to communicate? If I don't know what you mean by "religion" because you have some kind of personal definition, then your use of the word is, for me, meaningless.

There are standard definitions for the word "religion".

Because the **Oxford English Dictionary is a well-respected source, I will start there.

**Action or conduct indicating a belief in, reverence for, and desire to please a divine ruling power; the exercise or practice of rites or observances implying this.

**A particular system of faith and worship.

**Recognition on the part of man of some higher unseen power as having control of his destiny, and as being entitled to obedience, reverence, and worship; the general mental and moral attitude resulting from this belief, with reference to its effect upon the individual or the community; personal or general acceptance of this feeling as a standard of spiritual and practical life.

**Devotion to some principle; a strict fidelity or faithfulness; conscientiousness; pious affection or attachment.

DEFINITIONS OF RELIGION FROM OTHER SOURCES: an organized system of faith and worship www.phmc.state.pa.us/bah/priestly/vocab.asp

A system of ideas and rules for behavior based on supernatural explanations. highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/0072549238/student_view0/glossary.html

beliefs and actions related to supernatural beings and forces. www.geocities.com/brianmyhre/12Def.htm

A system of thinking that recognizes a supersoul and performs some sort of adoration of that supersoul. www.angelfire.com/pa/ebrownle2/gloss.html

And where is it exactly that you get "God's Truth" and how do you know it is from God and not man?

That is beside the point. I didn't say that theists, merely by virtue of believing in God are somehow exempt from the difficulty of ethics. I said that with overt denial of God comes the absolute necessity and immediacy of the situation. It is funny that you should bring up Nietzsche in this discussion because it is his thought that motivates my concern with ethics. The importance of God is that it gave man the illusion of truth, stemming from an insatiable "will to truth" that, interestingly, also led to the practice of science. This will to truth, however, is fundamentally destructive and finds fault in all prior prejudices and foolish assumptions - the idea of "God" being the last to go. But with the abandonment of God, the will to truth turns on truth itself (eg. postmodernism). Morality becomes difficult (and perhaps impossible) in the wake of God's death insofar as it was merely an interpretation of phenomena, a fact that is exposed as the will to truth turns its scrutiny to the soundness of moral claims.

The doctrine of morality offered by Mr. Dawkins (as some vaguely defined and meaningless "liberal consensus) and those offered by evolutionary psychologists (morality/empathy in the genes) does not properly address the question of morality. (I select these two parties because they are two vehemently nontheist and scientifically-minded camps that feel unthreatened by the moral question). In the case of the first, it is not clear how man is to adjudicate between competing moralities. In the case of the second, merely demonstrating the presence of particular genetic or behavioral impulses does not, in any way, necessitate a should to life, which is precisely what is required for a moral code.

Norm, I don't think that it's begging the question to make a distinction between true religion and perversions of religion. It's only begging the question if the distinction is made in a tautological, post hoc way. If you start an honest man's club all the crooks and liars will want to join up. Is any attempt to make a distinction between the true memebers and the false members tautological? It's no more question-begging than when someone argues that science perpetuates frauds, from the fact that some scientists (in terms of credentials, recognition in the community, etc.) have in fact been charlatans. "Oh," I hear, "But those people weren't true scientists, because they weren't really following the canons of the scientific method and scientific ethics. And anyway science can't be identified with any real-world institution or group of people. It's simply a mode of investigation."

I don't think that the latter is necessarily any more question-begging than the former. The fact is that the New Testament explicitly prohibits the vast majority of bad behavior that Christians are found doing. It's perfectly reasonable to then ask the sociological question whether actual Christian religion (including church institutons, customs, etc.) somehow causes most or all of us to be hypocrites, but it's no less coherent to point out that we are in fact contradicting the words of Christ rather than obeying them in our bad behavior.

The "No True Scotsman" fallacy does show why it doesn't make sense, or only makes sense in a limited context, to say that no true Mormon, Catholic, etc. would abuse children, kill someone, etc. Some persons who have been objectively Mormons or Catholics in every objective particular have indeed committed murder (though it still makes limited sense to say they were not true (in th sense of wayward), since it is quite obviously the case that Mormonism and Catholicism in general looks down upon these things).

The No True Scotsman fallacy does not have anything to do with whether religion has caused certain social outcomes, however. In this case we are not talking about the classification of particulars under a universal category ("a particular murderer" under "Catholic"), but rather attributing an outcome (e.g. "a particular murder") to a universal, ("religion") causally. It is a fact that some Catholics have committed murder. But did the Catholicism cause these people to murder? Religion is one of the most all-pervasive aspects of human life. For this reason it's correlated with all kinds of things, good and bad. Which of them is it causing? In what way did it cause them? Many of the bad things religious people do, for example in monotheism, has to do with the fact that they reject all gods but their own. Should we then conclude that the atrocities of monotheists is rooted in their belief in their own God, or their rejection of other gods (namely, their atheism with respect to other religions)?

Perhaps we could define religion as faith in something (something great and consequential) that is unseen and unverified or unverifiable (even if it is, e.g. historical materialism). This would also exclude a lot of things which clearly are and have been referred to as religion, specifically natural and rationalistic religion. Still, this might be a decent, somewhat neutral definition. But then atheism isn't its opposite, since atheism only denies the existence of gods. Rather the opposite of religion would be a kind of cosmological skepticism or lack of belief in order (a set in which atheism is one member). Like atheism it has no doctrinal content or institutional structures, but is merely characterized by lack of belief. It's debatable what the exact relationship is between this and atheism (though historically they are frequently found together). But in the moral and political realm it clearly has had many bad consequences as well as some good. Many of the most morally unserious students I've had have been what I'd call moral skeptics: they're very flippant about the existence or validity of any order of practical reasons outside their own instrumental rationality. This isn't the same as atheism, and in fact I know atheists who are morally serious. But psychologically I think that it's a lot closer to atheism than to religion.

You could also define religion as being fooled, or deluded, or believing in things without any good reasons at all and for no good purpose. Conversely, you could define atheism as disbelief only in those things which should be disbelieved (and nothing more) or in thing that are unreal. At times it seems that Dawkins slips into these kinds of definitions, in which cases he is using his categories largely normatively and for this reason doesn't have a good foundation for making empirical causal claims.

There you have it, eight different definitions of religion, none of which are identical. Thereby proving my point that different interpretations of the literal meaning of a given word exists.

I will say that you are correct in thinking that all of the definitions are similiar, but they are not identical. And it is those differences that create the situation in which Flew's No True Scotsman fallacy exists.

Dende,

I think what Dawkins is concerned about is faith. He understands faith to mean belief in something without evidence or even in spite of evidence to the contrary. Dawkins seems most concerned with the religions of the book (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) and the fact that they encourage and venerate that sort of faith.

The story of Doubting Thomas seems to suggest that Dawkins has the right notion of faith in mind for Christianity.

Dawkins seems to be attacking Religion understood as Faith in the Supernatural.

It doesn't really matter that you could define religion another way. As Dawkins points out in the interview, words are tools. On Dawkins view we get to use them however we want, but most people understand religion to mean faith in the supernatural.

Another important point to reiterate. Supposingly there is a right interpretation of each of these religions. What standard do we use to determine which is correct. Certainly not empirical investigation. If that is the standard they all look to be equally false or at least unjustified. Prayer or faith is a common answer to my question. This is what concerns Dawkins. If for example you are a moderate Christian who excepts that there can be virgin births and transubstantiation, what basis do you have to argue against more extreme fundamentalists. This is the problem of using faith or prayer as a standard of intepretation.

Ian,

It is not beside the point at all. It has been said that for an action to be moral requires that it have the right motivation. I fail to see how an illusion of truth is a right motivation. It seems to me that empathy is a far more satisfying basis for morality. Even if there wasn't an easily identifiable basis for morality the believer in an illusion is effectively in the same boat as a non-believer. Dawkins isn't offering some vaguely defined liberal consensus, anymore that religion offers a definition of what their sacred texts are saying. Non-believers access the same sources others do, but don't limit them to a single source, and they don't view them as divinely inspired. They subject them to rational thought. They don't accept them without evidence that they are beneficial.

It's so cool that you listen to Point of Inquiry. :-)

Norm said: "It seems to me that empathy is a far more satisfying basis for morality"

Bingo. This cuts through all of the philosophical bullshit. It isn't that complex to understand right from wrong. All you have to you is put yourself in the other person's shoes. It doesn't require a degree in theology and years of Bible study to understand what is right and what is wrong. On the contrary, pseudo-intellectual bullshit philosophy and so-called holy books just give people an excuse to do what they want and have some religious text justify their actions.

You just lost my visits. Pretty much specifically because I can't stand the idea that people such as yourself are out there who rally for gay and minority rights and then try to turn around and tell over half the nation, most of which aren't "dangerous" religious people, that they're idiots and are "evil". You're no different than those overzealous neocons who are trying to say that gay people are why our nation is falling, you just have a different icon on your flag of hate. Grow up, tribalisim has existed forever, and even if you were able to destroy religion, that same tribalisim that casues death, war and pain would manifest itself in some other form. If some guy burns some insence in his house, while saying something in a langage you don't speak, you should leave him alone just as much as some dude going bareback on his boyfreind. You sir, are a massive hypocrit.

When gays start murdering in the name of the gay life style I'll criticize that as well. I criticize religion for the non-thinking called faith, I think it is dangerous. It can lead to doing evil in the name of religion. Where is it exactly that I said religious people are inherently evil? Does saying non-thinking is stupid mean I think religious people are stupid, no more so than others who act based on faith rather than reason. As to losing your visits I frankly don't give a damn.

I don't remember anyone claiming that ALL religion is universially good/benificent. What I hear people saying is that while religion has often influenced people one way or another, most peoples' motivations are very complex, and it's too simplistic to say that 'religion caused this' or 'atheism caused that'.

Secondly, I don't think it's unreasonable to do a certain amount of... discrimination (in the selective sense, not the bigotted sense). For example, would you object to someone denying that North Korea (the Democratic People's Republic of Korea) is not really democratic, nor a republic? Would you object to someone denying that creationists are actually scientists?

I think a certain level of debate about whether person or group A represents philosophy B can and should happen without falling into fallacious argument.

I don't remember anyone claiming that ALL religion is universially good/benificent. What I hear people saying is that while religion has often influenced people one way or another, most peoples' motivations are very complex, and it's too simplistic to say that 'religion caused this' or 'atheism caused that'.

Secondly, I don't think it's unreasonable to do a certain amount of... discrimination (in the selective sense, not the bigotted sense). For example, would you object to someone denying that North Korea (the Democratic People's Republic of Korea) is not really democratic, nor a republic? Would you object to someone denying that creationists are actually scientists?

I think a certain level of debate about whether person or group A represents philosophy B can and should happen without falling into fallacious argument.

Sorry for the dupe

And PS Norm thanks for the site. I don't agree with all of your politics, but the conversation around here really gets me thinking.

snak, The thinking is what it's all about. If you're not careful you get your ass kicked. Note dende's trashing of my inarticulate attempt in making the point that religion is perfectly willing to take credit for any good coming from religious people whether it was the religion that was responsible or not, but are unwilling to take responsibility for anything bad that may come from the non-thinking called faith. Not that I think I was wrong, but that I did a poor job in making the point I was trying to make.

It has been said that for an action to be moral requires that it have the right motivation. I fail to see how an illusion of truth is a right motivation.

"It has been said"? By whom? I might claim that it has also "been said" that morality has nothing whatsoever to do with motivation and everything to do with action and consequence. But so what? Merely asserting the claims made by others does not make a valid argument. And even if it did, we must then define which motivations are morally acceptable and which are not.

Nevertheless, you are still failing to see my point regarding God as Truth and a foundation for morality. Yes, the theistic foundation of morality has been deemed as invalid, thereby necessitating that it has been invalid since its inception. The problem is not that theistic foundations were valid whereas nontheistic foundations are not. Rather, the problem is that with the overt denial of God comes the overt denial of Truth, moral truth included. Instead of being an implicit problem, the problem of morality now becomes entirely explicit. The self-avowed nontheist is immediately confronted with the problem of morality. Yes, the problem also faces the theist, but the theist is permitted to have the illusion of a foundation for morality. The nontheist, however, with the casting aside of God for whatever reason, must also subject morality (whose validity is hardly self-evident) to the same level of scrutiny.

I think that what happens all-too-often among nontheists is that they proudly cast aside God but cling ever-more-tightly to the morality that should become suspect with the denial of God. Interestingly, to me anyway, the "morality" concocted by many nontheists resembles almost exactly the moral prejudices of liberal society that themselves came from a theistic foundation. One must have a keen eye and ear to witness such things along with the courage to truly subject moral prejudices to examination. My main problem is that I don't see such courage and intellectual honesty among many nontheists.

It seems to me that empathy is a far more satisfying basis for morality.

The mere human capacity to empathize does not necessitate that humans should empathize. I assume that by 'empathy' you are referring either to the Golden Rule as espoused by historical figures like Jesus (positive formulation - Do unto others...) and Confucius (negative formulation - Do not do unto others...). But why must someone refrain from doing an action to someone else that they themselves would not inflict upon themselves? I assume that you would not wish to be killed, but what if someone who lacked or ignored his human capacity for empathy sought to kill you? Would it then be morally permissible to kill?

Also, empathy, for all your wishes to the contrary, is socially relative. In its most commonly understood form (and the form that I assume you are advocating), it presumes a certain equality among human actors, insofar as one should avoid doing actions to others that one would not wish upon oneself on the assumption that others are the same as oneself. But what if I lack that assumption of equality? What if I believe that lower types or declining life is fundamentally inferior to the more superior ascending man? What if I would actually wish for someone to kill me if I were, for example, mentally or physically handicapped and requiring the assistance of others for life? What I am trying to demonstrate is that empathy is not a universal. It does not compel any particular type of action, though I imagine that you think it would compel a sort of liberalized democratic citizen mode of life. The problem of morality cannot be solved merely by appeal to empathy or "reason" (as Dawkins frequently makes claim).

Bingo. This cuts through all of the philosophical bullshit. It isn't that complex to understand right from wrong.

Out of curiosity, Norm, would you classify the sentiment voiced above as another example of nonthinking? I get the sneaking suspicion that what you understand as qualifying as "thinking" is merely that which comports with liberalism and the ideals of the Enlightenment - equality, liberty, and progress. My argument is that with the death of God comes the necessary consequence of questioning even these beloved ideals as illusory.

I may sound like an idiot but I think there are two worlds: the 'human world,' and the 'universal world.' In the latter we are meaningless and infinitely small. In our world we have morality and meaning. Morality is based on situational emotions.

Even though we are meaningless we still feel empathy.

Regarding the argument that if you don't have faith in God, you can never know the truth.

Faith relies on the absence of evidence. How can it possibly determine the truth? The philosopher Daniel Dennett gave an excellent reply for which I've paraphrased:

If you want to reason about faith, and offer a reasoned defense of faith, I'm eager to play. I certainly grant the existence of the phenomenon of faith; I want to see a reasoned ground for taking faith seriously as a way of establishing useful facts. But don't expect me to go along with your defence of faith as a path to truth if at any point you appeal to the very dispensation you supposedly try to justify (circular reasoning). Before you appeal to faith when reason has you backed into a corner, think about whether you really want to abandon reason when reason sits on your side.

I have an uncle who is a physician and by that fact seems to think that he can pontificate on anything and everything. This seems to be a common trait among doctors. I find the same here: why do a bunch of atheists presume to define and then trash religion? From all that has been said here it seems no standard, all encompassing definition of religion can be given. What has been offered (from the OED etc) is entirely western and largely christian and post-enlightenment. Yet the word religion is used as if it applies to all religious traditions. In anthropology, when concepts are being worked out, the standard mode of interpretation is to use the indigineous uses of the term, but not just anyone's use will count - they go to the experts in the community to ask for the uses and nuances. The same should be done for religion. Ask the experts - see if theologians or religious scholars can agree, then use that meaning. If I want to know what strange quarks are, I would ask an expert, not some run of the mill physics teacher or even a physics student. Ask Gell-Man, ask the authorities.

What passes for discussion of religion on this blog, particularly from the atheists and the other darwinist ideologues (pity the man with one idea) as well as the rare christian believer reeks of drunken rants from college dorms. When in doubt, just mention Nietzsche! There is hardly ever a clear delineation of terms from which sensible discussion can flow - rather it is always the blind leading the blind.

Scientism is just as faith based as religion. The faith that science will answer every question is just that - faith. Anyone ever read Thomas Kuhn? He of the 'paradigm shift' was largely misunderstood - his main point in the Structure of Scientific Revolutions was not that paradigms shift but rather that all science works on unstated, apriori assumptions and that science breaks down and needs a shift when those assumptions are overthrown. Science is as theory laden as religion is, since religion's basic assumption : God exists, is just as a-priori. When God died religion had to come up with another assumption - rather a redifinition of God to mean 'that ultimate concern which one has faith in' (from Whitehead), and this has spawned its own fair share of problems. Buddhism seems to offer the next shift - no God, no self, no abiding reality.

So two main points: atheists, quit talking out of your asses - just because you went to sunday school doesn mean you know spit about religion ... let the religious stew in their own juices (and they will boil themselves) and stick to what you know best; and two, let's start a better discussion of what science is - this term too requires better defining.

Stanislav. We are not looking for a platonic definition of religion here. What is being criticized here is faith in the supernatural. If you don't think that meets the platonic definition fine. We will call it FS. Lots of people hold FS to be a good thing and that is what is being criticized here.

The theory ladeness of scientific claims does not mean that they are based on "unstated apriori assumptions." Provide some textual evidence that this is what Kuhn meant. Its not obvious to me that it is and it certainly doesn't follow that Science and religion are on an epistemic par.

Ian,

I pointed to one possible theory not to prove anything but simply point out that there are many feasible theories in addition to divine command. If I say for example that I subscribe to Hume's moral sentiment theory, and you don't accept it for some reason does it follow that your belief in truth becomes suspect with your denial of Hume .

You write, "Rather, the problem is that with the overt denial of God comes the overt denial of Truth, moral truth included."

I am not sure what this is supposed to mean. If "God" means the usual western notion of the omnipotent, omniscience, perfectly benevolent being it just doesn't follow that a denial of God means a denial of Truth. It is true that there is a printer on my desk. This proposition is true regardless of whether there is a God. If you are just identifying God with truth, then you're just playing with words and you are misrepresenting the atheist position. The atheist position is not a lack of belief that there are truths, but a lack of belief that there is a God understood as an all powerful supernatural being. I understand that there could be other conceptions of God. If you are operating with one of these please define it and provide an argument for the idea that a denial of God so understood entails a denial of truth. 

Oh the war over truth!

Just for the record. I already lost this war. You're reading the work of a loser. So if you find yourself shaking you're head slightly, or indeed violently, at what is written then please refer to the guy who beat me up… he won, so he must be right. Right?

If you find there are segments where I could possibly explain the situation a little more directly, clearly .. yeah O.K. .. or correctly .. then I'm perfectly willing to field suggestions. Suggestions can easily take on a positive attitude, since that’s their nature.

You GOTTA take a side on this, and if it’s not the side of truth then you lose. You and all the others on you're side. Because if you're not on the side of truth then that makes you wrong .. no matter how eloquently you phrase a lie .. its still .. er .. a lie.

The first question to ask is indeed, are we actually in a war? Is there a battle over the truth? Or to get to the point .. does truth exist? Look around you son. Them’s real bullets and genuine explosions and that tomato sauce? Not real tomato sauce.

Uh .. .hold on .. you're saying that just because people fight over the truth that it must exist? Why? Why? You ask me why and I suggest that if you have an internal struggle over whether you're right or wrong then I suggest you stop contributing to the population in general. You'll just end up shooting the wrong guys. Nobody likes that … especially in online games.

I don’t give a damn what you think you're entitled to, pick up a weapon and stand a post. That’s what it boils down to ..

When you start shooting, be careful not to kill anyone. Unless they're going to kill you, and you really don’t feel like dying. Or maybe they're going to shoot a whole bunch of other people, and you just don’t think that would be right. Afterall . .this aint a REAL war, its just a game.

For example: the skirmish between the evolved and the created. The evolved want to cull all the created so that when they have kids they will be fitter and more able to handle the world being rid of the genes that pollute their perfection. The created want to firebomb the evolved so that when they have kids they can send them to school without the fear of them becoming uncreated.

This addictive game is being played all over the internet, and unlike the old style FPS games (like TEAM FORTRESS :) ) they attract a much wider range of combatants. Hell .. there are OLD people out there putting holes in people. Mouse dexterity only gets you only so far in this new generation gaming world .. after that it gets you dead.

The powers that be .. (yes .. THEM) have noticed this fad and were kinda worried about it for a while. SYSOPs were contemplating dusting off and nuking the entire site from orbit. “WHY!?” you screech. Easy .. it was threatening to take over. Imagine if the west-end riot over whether or not its possible to simultaneously combust a heart valve, bigger heart and brain sponge actually became the war? What if foot soldiers started thinking that if they knocked off a few new science graduates then ultimate truth would be proved once and for all? Or what if some documentary maker started hiding handguns in his camera to convince ratings people?

It’s the only way to be sure.

Fortunately most of the combatants are appealing to the larger conflict rather than trying to supplant it. Most will say they are on the side of truth (rather than actually BEING the truth) and actually think that helps them .. muahahaha .. which releases the tension for the SYSOP people who push backspace on their <.nuke> command lines. Afterall .. they are on the front lines. They have to make all the hard decisions.

Oh sure .. if it gets messy in the alleys a few of these guys might sally down and take out a few platoons to calm things down, but you never really see them….

Hehe .. I love conspiracy theories .. who else knows that sort of thing doesn’t REALLY go on?

Boom

ah .. crap.

Stanisav:

"So two main points: atheists, quit talking out of your asses - just because you went to sunday school doesn mean you know spit about religion ... let the religious stew in their own juices (and they will boil themselves) and stick to what you know best; and two, let's start a better discussion of what science is - this term too requires better defining."

You do not need to define religion to understand the simple concept that every religion encourages belief in things known to be untrue. The Scientific Method does not encourage belief in things in which there is no evidence for; anything is not a belief, but just a speculation.

I think you are overcomplicating the matter.

"every religion encourages belief in things known to be untrue"

this is just plain false - no religion asks its adherents to believe in something KNOWN to be untrue - that would committ all adherents to bad faith. You could not believe something you know to be untrue. Belief is only justified assertion in the truth of a proposition. it would be illogical to believe the truth of what you know is false.

now granted, religions ask their adherents to believe in things which are either 1) underdetermined by the evidence, or 2) impossible to verify. My comments on science above were to show that at the heart of science are similar propositions, namely the proposition: Scientific method is the best way to understand the world

this is itself not a scientifically verifiable statement since it cannot correspond to any observable fact in the world, and it is underdetermined because for all we know some future state of affairs may prove impossible for science to deal with...

scientism, however, holds the truth of the proposition as dogma - how is this not religious?

science can only ever justify itself pragmatically - that is its strength: its method yields testable predictions according to some basic assumptions. if these predictions prove useful, then we give strength to the model from which they spring and have more justification to believe the model reflects reality. Religion, as a model for predicting certain social and moral events/facts yields testable assertions which are themselves also pragmatically verified, incrementally giving or taking justification that the religous model refers to reality. Science and religion are both theory laden social systems.

Now who's talking out of their ass? All of this pretentious meaningless bullshit reminds of George Orwell's Politics and the English Language

Here is an example from Orwell's essay:

Here is a well-known verse from Ecclesiastes:

I returned and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all.

Here it is in modern English:

Objective considerations of contemporary phenomena compel the conclusion that success or failure in competitive activities exhibits no tendency to be commensurate with innate capacity, but that a considerable element of the unpredictable must invariably be taken into account.

I don't know, Norm. I don't think Ian can be so easily dismissed. He may have misspoken when he claimed that to deny God was do deny all truth, but I think he was right in saying that to deny God is to deny the traditional basis for certain kinds of truth. Notice here that that I didn't say all truths because I think it may be helpful to make a distinction between truths that can be reached emperically (e.g. you can answer the question, is there a typwriter on my desk?, through empirical observation, through your senses) and those that cannot (e.g. is this good?, is this bad?, is this moral?,etc.). If you deny the existence of God, then you are left with the very difficult problem of finding a way to answer these nonempirical truths. A theist, although be may very well be mistaken, can say that to kill is wrong because God said so. But what can the nontheist say? On what is his morality grounded? I think that was really closer to what Ian was getting at.

What is god?

*God is truth.

But what is truth?

*Truth is God.

Ok, so god and truth are the same thing. So how do you determine what god/truth is?

*Well, everyone's definition of god/truth is different, so your question is too simplistic. And as a nontheist you have nothing on which to base your moral code.

Okay...sooo.. then how did you determine YOUR god/truth which provides you with your moral code, and how do you know that this is the correct moral code as opposed to the moral codes of other people's notion of god/truth?

*This is a question which can only be answered by someone who is an expert in theology.

Well, thank you, NOW I understand... :\

There is no clarity to any of these points being made. They come across to me as being intellectually dishonest, evasive, ambiguous and meaningless.

btweb, that is exactly what I was trying to say. When I said that the death of God brings the death of Truth, I capitalized the "T" on purpose to distinguish it from truth, accessible through sensory perception and empirical analysis. I can see how this might have been unclear, but I think you did a good job of clarifying this for me, so I will leave it at that.

"A theist, although be may very well be mistaken, can say that to kill is wrong because God said so. But what can the nontheist say? On what is his morality grounded? I think that was really closer to what Ian was getting at."

I don't really see how this helps. One can ask what God's reasons are for particular moral principles. If you are able to give us God's reasons, then why did we need him in the first place. The justification for the moral principle is in the reasons provided, not God. On the other hand if you say the buck stops with God as it were, then any arbitrary moral principle would be permitted so long if God says its alright. Suppose its God's will to kill every man, woman and infant in a city. Is this a God worthy of worship. Shall we do this just because God said so? I think not. God is too Good to order such a thing you say?

"Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt. Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass." (I Samuel 15:2-3)

It seems that God is either irrelevant as a basis for morality or he/she/it is an arbitrary source of morality.

Ian C: "When I said that the death of God brings the death of Truth, I capitalized the "T" on purpose to distinguish it from truth, accessible through sensory perception and empirical analysis."

If something cannot be preceived, or analyzed, then does it exist? I don't think so, and further, you can never PROVE the unexistance of something does not exist...

Stanislav: "this is itself not a scientifically verifiable statement since it cannot correspond to any observable fact in the world, and it is underdetermined because for all we know some future state of affairs may prove impossible for science to deal with..."

"we all know"? How do we "know" that the scientific model of understanding the universe is going to someday prove inadequate? Also, it seems to me that science IS the best method for understanding the universe that we currently have... it might not always be, but it certainly is more beneficial than religious modes of understanding.

One could make the case for religious thought in fact DISCOURAGING progress and causing untold suffering on humanity.

"scientism, however, holds the truth of the proposition as dogma - how is this not religious?"

Right... I completely disagree.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=dogma

Science holds nothing as dogma. Scientific thought encourages scepticism, and a constant challenge to ideas of all sorts, in an effort to free them from error.

Religious thought does the opposite. It seems to be clear as day to me. :shrug:

When I said that the death of God brings the death of Truth, I capitalized the "T" on purpose to distinguish it from truth, accessible through sensory perception and empirical analysis

Okkaayy... hmmmm..

Could someone please explain this to me so that I can understand this. Seems like everyone else is saying, "Oh, yes, having that T capitalized makes all of the difference, and makes perfect sense now."

Please, can anyone help me out here and explain what in the hell all of this means?

Damn, no wonder I hate going to church and hate theology so much. :\

I think they are saying that without a common understanding of God, we lose a common understanding of morality & ethics. Not that these are impossible without God, just that they become somewhat arbitrary.

The way I think of it is a game of soccer or whatever where there is no established set of rules. Each player decides on the rules for themself. So one player decides you (he) can carry the ball, another decides there should be three balls on the field, another decides that the other team can only score once per game. All this makes it very hard to talk about the game - how long the game will last, who is winning, which players are skilled, etc.

Chris in a previous comment dealt with Ian's argument, capital T notwithstanding. In fact the question was settled in 380 B.C. in Plato's dialogue with Euthyphro.

Norm, the question was hardly settled in Plato's Euthyphro. The question was discussed at length, but like many of the dialogues, no clear answer arises as a result. In fact, theologians and philosophers continue to wrestle with this issue. The debate over morality is hardly settled, and this element of morality is no exception. But my whole argument here is rooted in the analysis of the question of morality by Nietzsche. In particular, I am reminded of section five of his "Skirmishes" in Twilight of the Idols in which he writes:

G. Eliot. — They are rid of the Christian God and now believe all the more firmly that they must cling to Christian morality. That is an English consistency; we do not wish to hold it against little moralistic females à la Eliot. In England one must rehabilitate oneself after every little emancipation from theology by showing in a veritably awe-inspiring manner what a moral fanatic one is. That is the penance they pay there.

We others hold otherwise. When one gives up the Christian faith, one pulls the right to Christian morality out from under one's feet. This morality is by no means self-evident: this point has to be exhibited again and again, despite the English flatheads. Christianity is a system, a whole view of things thought out together. By breaking one main concept out of it, the faith in God, one breaks the whole: nothing necessary remains in one's hands. Christianity presupposes that man does not know, cannot know, what is good for him, what evil: he believes in God, who alone knows it. Christian morality is a command; its origin is transcendent; it is beyond all criticism, all right to criticism; it has truth only if God is the truth — it stands and falls with faith in God.

When the English actually believe that they know "intuitively" what is good and evil, when they therefore suppose that they no longer require Christianity as the guarantee of morality, we merely witness the effects of the dominion of the Christian value judgment and an expression of the strength and depth of this dominion: such that the origin of English morality has been forgotten, such that the very conditional character of its right to existence is no longer felt. For the English, morality is not yet a problem.

Perhaps this excerpt clarifies what I have been saying.

Jo ann .. if you want a straightforward answer then you're reading the wrong guys post! Hehe .. but ah what the hell.. I'll have a stab ... or at least fire off a couple a intercontinental ballistic missiles .. (HEY! .. IBMs .. woot! )

OK .. truth. I like Ian's line: there are no 'versions' of the truth. if you capitalise truth it makes no difference. If you equate truth with god then you are talking about an attribute of a person .. not a concept.

It’s logically sound to say "god is truthful", its nonsense to say "truth is god" just like its OK to say "Jo is confused" but if you say "confused is Jo" you'll get funny looks (and maybe a slap?)

Just like any other attributes or concepts there are some things that you should be able to say about truth.

1. if its true it will always be true.

2. if its true it can only be accepted or rejected.

3. if its true it will be self evident.

d. if its true it will have 3 statements that define it.

Science wants to claim truth for its findings, but doesn’t stack up .. religion also wants to establish truth but doesn’t stack up .. the answers you are looking for lie ... uh .. door .. door .. oh yes .. remember I told you? I can only show you the door .. you have to walk through it ... but some cute girl will open it for you ...

there .. you can go back to church now.

Yikes! The last time that I went to church was when I was 12 or 13 years old. Well, I did attend three more times for some funerals. Anyway, all of this shit has convinced me that I made the right decision. Quantam mechanics is easier to understand than this crap, even though I have forgotten so much of the terminology that I had learned in the mathematics, physics, technical mathematics, etc classes. Enough of this shit. I have been trying to get a straight answer out of Christians/theists... whatever the hell they call themselves, for the past year, ever since I got the internet, and I am sick of it. The only Christian who ever made any sense to me is Hannah, and she hasn't posted here in a long time. Where are you Hannah??? Please come back!!

Oh, and where is Yank in Oz? I miss his Jack in the Box and his long, thoughtful, straight-forward, intelligent posts which actually made sense to little ole' me. ;)

sorry. it should be simple. the truth should be readily available to all, otherwise its not available at all. them's the two choices you have - according to (law 2 or 3 or both of) that bollocks i made up:

1. if its true it can only be accepted or rejected.

2. if its true it will be self evident.