Religion and Atheism

[MerenthaClone]

If it's just about who gets to decide right and wrong - this is probably my biggest bugbear about atheism - isn't it just the whim of a collective (majority)? And isn't a tyranny of the majority still a tyranny?

Nah.  I personally have attempted to decide what I think is right or wrong and will live by and advocate for that.  Rawl's Veil of Ignorance is tremendously important to what i think it right, regardless of what the majority thinks.  What is legal is different, but that's no different from you having your deity's words delivered unto you while living in a society that disagrees.  

Incidentally, while I was all about my politeness to others in a previous post, I have zero problems with utterly tearing into someone re: religion or core beliefs as soon as they attempt to remove core rights from you based on that sincere belief.  Sincere beliefs don't have to be inviolate, and politeness isn't a mandate.  

[TrueMetis]

Of course the said higher power is perfectly capable of changing what is right and wrong, but one hopes that said higher power would give guidance.

If you understand that morality isn't constant, don't call it constant.

Now then how do you think you receive this supposed guidance? And if such a thing actually exists how do explain the massively different moral beliefs of people even in the same culture, let alone across separate ones? You'd think if this higher being was indeed "smarter/better/greater than a mere person" that it would find it relatively easy to convince the majority of humanity that its subjective morality was better than our subjective moralities.

If it's just about who gets to decide right and wrong - this is probably my biggest bugbear about atheism - isn't it just the whim of a collective (majority)? And isn't a tyranny of the majority still a tyranny?

Most people don't try and force their morality onto others. There are exceptions, but reality dictates that some people's morals are going to have to be ignored to some degree. If you think it's immoral to eat meat, well why would it be better for the minority to dictate to the majority no meat, as opposed to the majority saying "don't like it don't eat it."

Though I don't understand why this is your problem with atheism, this problem doesn't go away if your right about your higher power. It did and does exist between religions.

[Stubby]

Isn't it equally as valid to say that non-religious people are passing laws based on their own non-religious values and beliefs that affect everyone, including religious people.

Unless you are going to argue that the passing of laws should only be based solely on something like economic utility (which would lead to rather absurd outcomes), as soon as you introduce a value judgment into making a decision you really are just amalgamating people's value judgments together to make laws.

No.  For example: The ACL objects to marriage equality and abortion on religious grounds. They actively campaign that their beliefs trump all others - even those that do not believe.  However, a law allowing gay marriage or permitting abortion does not affect them at all.  They will not be forced to have a same-sex marriage or an abortion.  They can choose to not have either.  But a gay person cannot marry.  I am all in favour of religious folks believing what they want and for others to have the choices they want without interference from people whose beliefs are completely irrelevant to the them.

It is probably as equally valid to criticize people (both religious and non-religious) when they try to force their values and beliefs (whether they are from religion or not) on other people through changes to the law. And yet we do this all the time. It's just that religion is a bit more organized.

Of course. But the idea (or value judgment as you put it) is fair game for criticism, until some mystical religious something or other is attached to the idea, and then it is somehow insulting to argue against the idea.

Secondly, I find a lot of people who criticize religion actually don't understand the religion, or have a misconception about what they are criticizing. Even those who come across as really intelligent and articulate. I've seen it time and time again.

Yeah I see this comment all the time.  I see it time and time again, but it's usually just a variation on the no true scotsman fallacy or an attempt to turn the criticism away from the debater's own beliefs.  The form the response usually takes is: "Not my religion!"

 

[Liffguard]

I mean this was embarrassing. And I say this as someone who does not believe Christian revelation is true.

 

The idea that Hitchens is more of a "philosophical embarrassment" than William Lain Craig, of all people, is laughable. Craig is the absolute fucking master of using flowery language and obscure references to dress up childishly simple arguments.

[Bonesy]

I'm a Pascal's wager adherent atheist. Which basically makes me agnostic.

I will try to point out perceived nonsense when I can because I believe I'm a rational being.

In a vacuum, I would remain silent.

Faced with nonsense, I will be vocal.

[Gears of the Beast]

I'm a Pascal's wager adherent atheist. Which basically makes me agnostic.

How does one adhere to Pascal's Wager? Pretend to believe in all the gods with a 'carrot and stick' mythology in the hopes that they'll be deceived into letting you into their version of paradise if one of them turns out to be real? 

[Bonesy]

Well, when you put it that way it sounds stupid.

Read the rest of my post to see how I do it.

[Daemrion]

Nah.  I personally have attempted to decide what I think is right or wrong and will live by and advocate for that.  Rawl's Veil of Ignorance is tremendously important to what i think it right, regardless of what the majority thinks.  What is legal is different, but that's no different from you having your deity's words delivered unto you while living in a society that disagrees.  

Incidentally, while I was all about my politeness to others in a previous post, I have zero problems with utterly tearing into someone re: religion or core beliefs as soon as they attempt to remove core rights from you based on that sincere belief.  Sincere beliefs don't have to be inviolate, and politeness isn't a mandate.  

Someone who is religious decided that their religion is right (and other religions and non-religion is wrong) and will live by and advocate for that regardless of what the majority or others think. 

What is a 'core right'? Who defines it?

To me, that seems to be introducing some sort of value judgment as to what is a 'right' and what is a 'core right', in which case which brings me back to my bugbear with atheism - that it is just the collective whim of what people feel are 'rights' and 'core rights'. Unless of course, 'core rights' are defined in some other manner.

Most people don't try and force their morality onto others. There are exceptions, but reality dictates that some people's morals are going to have to be ignored to some degree. If you think it's immoral to eat meat, well why would it be better for the minority to dictate to the majority no meat, as opposed to the majority saying "don't like it don't eat it."

Though I don't understand why this is your problem with atheism, this problem doesn't go away if your right about your higher power. It did and does exist between religions.

I disagree with the first sentence. I agree that reality dictates that some people's morals are going to have to be ignored to some degree. However, I think that in a way, every piece of law that we make involves some sort of value judgment that may very well impinge on someone's morals, values or beliefs.

Using your example, people who think it is immoral to eat meat may still feel like their morals etc are being impinged upon when other people eat meat because it's cruel to animals etc, they may get sick when they smell meat. I don't see that it would be better for the minority to dictate to the majority, but at the same time, I don't see that it would necessarily be better that the majority dictate to the minority either. (for example, see Egypt and the overthrow of the democratically elected government by a minority - a lot of people would actually side with the minority and say that they were right to overthrow the majority)

Or, another example, I think that there should be very stringent background checks before one can legally possess a gun. I'm sure the majority of Americans would disagree, but I'm also pretty sure that the majority of Australians (and Europeans) would agree with the statement before. So which lot of people are right? If you do implement gun controls then perhaps it is forcing a sort of morality onto others (e.g. unrestricted gun ownership is bad because it leads to more people getting shot and we think that life is precious and so to reduce the number of gun deaths we're introducing gun controls), and yet if you don't implement gun controls, you are also forcing a sort of morality onto others (e.g. restricted gun ownership is bad because one can't own what they want to own and we can't shoot other people to save ourselves).

This problem does go away if one is right about their Higher Power. Because then that provides guidance as to deciding what is right and what is wrong from a perspective outside of the human perspective. It gives a yardstick to measure the value judgments that we make. Because if the one true Higher Power said that eating meat is wrong or right, it then gives you a definitive answer as to whether eating meat is right or wrong. Deciding which religion is right and wrong though is of course, something that one does not take lightly, and that one researches and thinks about deeply before making a decision to follow that religion. But once one finds their religion, then I think that one has a yardstick on which to measure and make value judgments in their lives, and about decisions that will inevitably also affect others around them in how they act, live, vote etc...

In a way it is a search for an 'absolute' in a world of 'relatives'.

No.  For example: The ACL objects to marriage equality and abortion on religious grounds. They actively campaign that their beliefs trump all others - even those that do not believe.  However, a law allowing gay marriage or permitting abortion does not affect them at all.  They will not be forced to have a same-sex marriage or an abortion.  They can choose to not have either.  But a gay person cannot marry.  I am all in favour of religious folks believing what they want and for others to have the choices they want without interference from people whose beliefs are completely irrelevant to the them.

Of course. But the idea (or value judgment as you put it) is fair game for criticism, until some mystical religious something or other is attached to the idea, and then it is somehow insulting to argue against the idea.

Yeah I see this comment all the time.  I see it time and time again, but it's usually just a variation on the no true scotsman fallacy or an attempt to turn the criticism away from the debater's own beliefs.  The form the response usually takes is: "Not my religion!"

 

To address your first point, legislation (for example anti-discrimination legislation). For example, a doctor is forced against their own religious beliefs to perform an abortion. In a way, making something legal or illegal involves a value judgment which not all will agree with. Are you okay with a doctor that is religious refusing to perform any abortions for any patients that come their way?

Secondly, ideas and value judgments are meant to be criticized. But don't tell me that I can't criticize someone's idea or value judgment just because my criticism stems from my beliefs and values which come from my religion (which is what a lot of people who are anti-religion do).

To your third point, you may see it said all the time. But it's a valid criticism each and every time. For example, I still see people say that Christians support slavery (when the opposite is true - Christians are against slavery). Or people who think Christianity is a religion where you are saved by doing good works. Or where people say that Christianity does not value females because they aren't the 'head'. Each and every one of the above is actually wrong and yet people still repeat those misconceptions all the time. 

Who knows their religion better, you or them? In most cases, it is probably them.

[Stubby]

To address your first point, legislation (for example anti-discrimination legislation). For example, a doctor is forced against their own religious beliefs to perform an abortion. In a way, making something legal or illegal involves a value judgment which not all will agree with. Are you okay with a doctor that is religious refusing to perform any abortions for any patients that come their way?

Secondly, ideas and value judgments are meant to be criticized. But don't tell me that I can't criticize someone's idea or value judgment just because my criticism stems from my beliefs and values which come from my religion (which is what a lot of people who are anti-religion do).

To your third point, you may see it said all the time. But it's a valid criticism each and every time. For example, I still see people say that Christians support slavery (when the opposite is true - Christians are against slavery). Or people who think Christianity is a religion where you are saved by doing good works. Or where people say that Christianity does not value females because they aren't the 'head'. Each and every one of the above is actually wrong and yet people still repeat those misconceptions all the time. 

Who knows their religion better, you or them? In most cases, it is probably them.

1. If the doctor is receiving public funding then they should not object, IMO.  Because public funding is secular. If they had a reason for opposing abortion then I would suggest they chose the wrong profession if their personal beliefs override their medical training.

2. I never told you that can't criticise anything.  This is a generalisation and in my experience incorrect.  Unless people have told you that your criticism is meaningless because it is without evidence, in which case your critiques can be easily rejected.

3. It's not a valid position any time.  When one is critiquing core beliefs and the no true scotsman is trotted out, it is nothing more than a dodge.  Or it's cherrypicking the bible.  Or it's passing something off as not applicable to the person engaged in the debate.  I don't think I've used any of the examples you listed except the slavery one, which is classic no true scotsman.  To get around it, you would need to cite evidence that all of chritianity has always condemned slavery, otherwise it's just cherrypicking and/or a sign of evolving morals.

4. Yeah, not so much, in my experience.

[MerenthaClone]

I'm honestly confused by your insistence that people can't determine what they think is moral without the influence of some supreme being, Daemrion.  

 

Someone who is religious decided that their religion is right (and other religions and non-religion is wrong) and will live by and advocate for that regardless of what the majority or others think. 

 

This is...different from atheists how?  Besides not having to think about what they think and why because they can just shortcut all of that thought process with "God told me".   

[Liffguard]

This problem does go away if one is right about their Higher Power. Because then that provides guidance as to deciding what is right and what is wrong from a perspective outside of the human perspective. It gives a yardstick to measure the value judgments that we make. Because if the one true Higher Power said that eating meat is wrong or right, it then gives you a definitive answer as to whether eating meat is right or wrong.

No it doesn't, that's just appealing to authority. God, if it exists, might very well declare eating meat to be wrong (or acceptable, or even compulsory, or anything) and as a thinking being I can choose to disagree. If a being more powerful than we are makes a moral declaration it doesn't necessarily make that declaration true.

[Altherion]

I have no doubt that it is more sophisticated than "I'm right and you're wrong", but I don't see how one can ever say a complex moral framework that a specific society was built on is somehow better than another. When someone makes a value judgment, no doubt they make a value judgment based on their own set of specific values based on how they were raised, their environment etc...but there's no way to measure out that one person's judgment and values is more 'right' or 'wrong' than any other person's judgment.

Atheism has no yardstick but one's own values to measure things against. And I suppose that one's own values are only as good as one thinks them to be, which generally would be I think my own values are good.

That is correct. Some of the New Atheists believe that we may eventually be able to analyze morality scientifically, but we have yet to find a moral framework that is universally accepted as the best within the academic community of philosophers, let alone the world as a whole. That said, there are a few ways to rank such frameworks based on objective measures. For example, one could consider how well a certain framework fits with its technological era (i.e. does it allow people to make the most of the technology and thus create the most powerful society?).

Another way is to apply the concept of natural selection to moral values. That is, the success of a moral system can be judged by the number of adherents, though unlike natural selection in biology, such adherents can be gained not only by reproduction, but also by conversion. Ironically, when judged by this metric, atheism and secular cultures in general lose, and they lose quite badly. They're winning the conversion game, but the dominant factor is the reproduction and in that there is absolutely no contest.

[Jo498]

That is correct. Some of the New Atheists believe that we may eventually be able to analyze morality scientifically, but we have yet to find a moral framework that is universally accepted as the best within the academic community of philosophers, let alone the world as a whole. That said, there are a few ways to rank such frameworks based on objective measures. For example, one could consider how well a certain framework fits with its technological era (i.e. does it allow people to make the most of the technology and thus create the most powerful society?).

Another way is to apply the concept of natural selection to moral values. That is, the success of a moral system can be judged by the number of adherents, though unlike natural selection in biology, such adherents can be gained not only by reproduction, but also by conversion.

Regardless of religion most moral philosophers are rather sceptical about such suggestions. It is usually seen as a kind of category mistake (variations of the is-ought-fallacy) that one should determine the "value" of a moral system by its "success". Whatever success means here why should this count for whether a system is "more moral" (or contains the correct moral prescriptions)? (E.g. slaveholding societies were often quite successful (like in conquering and enslaving their neighbors) but slavery is still usually seen as immoral. So what counts as "success" in the first place would probably not be independent of morality.)

And obviously "value" and "success" are evaluative concepts, so evaluation does not go away either, but is only shifted to a slightly different evaluative dimension.

Of course, simply appealing to the authority of a higher power (deity) will not do either. Therefore traditional religious moralists usually appeal to rationality, nature, conscience etc. as sources independent of holy writ or revelation. Because all these sources finally end in god, one then tries to show that they should lead to convergent or at least not widely diverging prescriptions.

[Seli]

...

This problem does go away if one is right about their Higher Power. Because then that provides guidance as to deciding what is right and what is wrong from a perspective outside of the human perspective. It gives a yardstick to measure the value judgments that we make. Because if the one true Higher Power said that eating meat is wrong or right, it then gives you a definitive answer as to whether eating meat is right or wrong. Deciding which religion is right and wrong though is of course, something that one does not take lightly, and that one researches and thinks about deeply before making a decision to follow that religion. But once one finds their religion, then I think that one has a yardstick on which to measure and make value judgments in their lives, and about decisions that will inevitably also affect others around them in how they act, live, vote etc...

In a way it is a search for an 'absolute' in a world of 'relatives'.

...

In practice that doesn't matter much though, since the odds that someone is right about that Higher Power seem to be infinitesimally low. And even within earth it is clear that no such claim has ever been proven. Which makes them worthless.

People believing in their truth of course are a very powerful force in change for the world, and our societies have been molded by them, but that does not mean they were right.

Of course people do seem to go for the ideologies and religions, and interpretation of those, that suit them best. So I wouldn't assume that the religion is a yardstick people live by, but rather that people live by a (subjective) yardstick and choose the religion or ideology that suits that. (Or the interpretation, in the vast swathes of the world where choosing a religion is uncommon).

 

[Altherion]

Regardless of religion most moral philosophers are rather sceptical about such suggestions. It is usually seen as a kind of category mistake (variations of the is-ought-fallacy) that one should determine the "value" of a moral system by its "success". Whatever success means here why should this count for whether a system is "more moral" (or contains the correct moral prescriptions)? (E.g. slaveholding societies were often quite successful (like in conquering and enslaving their neighbors) but slavery is still usually seen as immoral. So what counts as "success" in the first place would probably not be independent of morality.)

And obviously "value" and "success" are evaluative concepts, so evaluation does not go away either, but is only shifted to a slightly different evaluative dimension.

Yes, this is true (which is why I didn't want to go into them ). However, the natural selection version is somewhat more robust: it proposes a simple question that is mostly independent of values ("How many people think like this?").

[Castel]

No.  For example: The ACL objects to marriage equality and abortion on religious grounds. They actively campaign that their beliefs trump all others - even those that do not believe.  However, a law allowing gay marriage or permitting abortion does not affect them at all.  They will not be forced to have a same-sex marriage or an abortion.  They can choose to not have either.  But a gay person cannot marry.  I am all in favour of religious folks believing what they want and for others to have the choices they want without interference from people whose beliefs are completely irrelevant to the them.

Of course. But the idea (or value judgment as you put it) is fair game for criticism, until some mystical religious something or other is attached to the idea, and then it is somehow insulting to argue against the idea.

Yeah I see this comment all the time.  I see it time and time again, but it's usually just a variation on the no true scotsman fallacy or an attempt to turn the criticism away from the debater's own beliefs.  The form the response usually takes is: "Not my religion!"

 

How does that not involve value judgments? 

It seems to me that it clearly does, based on what an effect is and what effects justify limiting rights. The question is really just which value judgments are more congruent with a certain set of laws or common values. 

[Jo498]

It's not so simple. Some churches/religious institutions are afraid that they would be forced to e.g. conduct same-sex marriages or would not be allowed to teach that marriage was between man and woman only etc. that is, a christian college that would teach such stuff would lose its status or so (look at Rod Dreher's blog for apparently very real fears conservatives have) (One should also note that e.g. same-sex marriage was quite outside the liberal Overton window only 20 years ago and it is not an exotic religious position (like eating no meat on full moon days) to have doubts about that. Rather it was the mainstream position until 10 years ago or less.)

And with abortion/contraceptives the question seems to boil down to the point that certain religious institutions do not want to finance health care plans that pay for them (I am not in the US so I am hazy on the details.) If religious freedom is a thing there clearly are real conflicts of rights here and it is not all clear which one should prevail.

[Castel]

It's not so simple. Some churches/religious institutions are afraid that they would be forced to e.g. conduct same-sex marriages or would not be allowed to teach that marriage was between man and woman only etc. that is, a christian college that would teach such stuff would lose its status or so (look at Rod Dreher's blog for apparently very real fears conservatives have) (One should also note that e.g. same-sex marriage was quite outside the liberal Overton window only 20 years ago and it is not an exotic religious position (like eating no meat on full moon days) to have doubts about that. Rather it was the mainstream position until 10 years ago or less.)

And with abortion/contraceptives the question seems to boil down to the point that certain religious institutions do not want to finance health care plans that pay for them (I am not in the US so I am hazy on the details.) If religious freedom is a thing there clearly are real conflicts of rights here and it is not all clear which one should prevail.

I didn't mean to imply that every case of conflict could be easily resolved or that there is always a clear ideal. 

I've just always found the liberal insistence that they are not imposing values because it doesn't count as an imposition under their value system a bit ...I dunno, unhelpful? 

[Jo498]

Sorry, I probably didn't respond to what you said but what you quoted from further above. I completely agree with your second sentence. Such claims are either naive or part of the time-honored strategy to insist that the own position/method is "natural", "rational","scientific", "neutral", "balanced" or whatever whereas the opponents are following an ideology.

[Altherion]

Just about every personal insult that can be raised has been thrown at me by religious believers over the years. Attacking a belief is not attacking a person.

This is true, but you have to be careful here. It is not necessary to attack a person in order to cause him or her harm -- it is sufficient to attack something that the person values. I personally find this strange, but there is experimental evidence that religious beliefs are the most important thing in life to some people and are in fact more important than life itself. You don't see this much with Christians (at most, they will insult the offender), but there is at least one religion the adherents of which are willing to sacrifice their lives in attempts at lethal retaliation for what they perceive to be attacks on their faith.

Likewise, the people who oppose laws based on their religion despite the fact that these laws don't directly affect most of them (some may be affected depending on their profession) are doing it because they are certain that the behavior allowed, encouraged or mandated by such laws will lead to something bad (usually eternal damnation) for those who partake in it. Even if they are not directly affected, the normalization of such behavior will sooner or later cause it to spread to those who do not know any better (e.g. children) so in the eyes of the believers, it is their moral duty to stop it.