“Gott ist tot” Nietzsche

This is partly why Nietzsche saw Christianity as nihilistic. To Nietzsche, nihilism is the consequence of any idealistic philosophical system, because all idealisms suffer from the same weakness as Christian morality—that there is no “foundation” to build on. He therefore describes himself as “a ‘subterranean man’ at work, one who tunnels and mines and undermines.”

This goes for corporations, as well, and governmental bureaucracies. But, religions, as the oldest institutions, have the most deep rot. Thankfully, they are also in greater positions of falling into irrelevance. Hopefully, corporations will follow suit in a few centuries.

This is also a distinct thing from a belief in a deity. That will likely survive past organized churches, but hopefully rationalism will win in the end, for it is the only thing that truly separates us from the beasts.

After an another discussion of a similar sort, what followwed was a foray into the question of what constitutes spirituality in an aregligious sense, and what a wild ride that was.. These questions are all difficult, I think, because we understand so little about we,,as humans, come by and utilize our self-aeareness. We know next to nothing about the brain, for instance, the very center of our sense of self and how we relate to the world around us.

How I would love to get a flash-forward to see how these questions are debated by future generations.
Or will robots be doing the debaing?

Since science has explained so much of the cosmos as naturally arising from natural processes, a deity is simply superfluous- as I said, Who made God? is a superfluous query if the only answer is ‘He always was.’ For the same can be said of nature, sans Supernature.

CO: But you leave out the largest group of all- that silent majority of 85-90% of Homer Simpsons sleeping in the pews. Viva the D’oh!

Look, if a bunch of atheists want to discuss all that is evil about religion, they can find plenty of evidence of that. However, the caricature that they would be making of religion is not real, and if we want to have an honest discussion it’s more helpful to consider the real thing instead of the strawman version.

Similarly, it would not be very productive for narrow minded Christians to talk of evil atheists. They could find plenty of examples to bolster their claims, but they too would be overgeneralizing in order to create their preferred ‘enemy’.

So what I’m really asking when I talk of being ‘offended’ is to debate the real institutions of religion, good and bad- to not go to either extreme with assumptions. Yes, to some degree it’s personally ‘offensive’ but I’m not claiming that because I’m thin skinned. The greater point I’m making is that it’s intellectually dishonest to frame the discussion with an assumption that you can’t prove (or can only prove by cherry picking the historical facts).

92% of the world’s population believes in some form of theism, leaving 8% as true atheist.

Only at TMV would you be outnumbered 5 to 1!

LOL!

And yes, I realize the criticisms are mainly of the institutions (although obviously inherent in those criticisms is a presumption that the multitudes who worship within those institutions are idiots). And yes, institutions can stifle individuality but individuality without bounds is chaos and anarchy. So I can criticize that end of the spectrum just as you focus on criticism of the other extreme. The actual situation though is somewhere in the middle, with institutions giving structure to societal groups and allowing people to function collectively, but individuals still pushing the boundaries of the group’s sensibilities, goals, and framework.

This is a good point, and why such claims as CS has made (here and in the past)- such as a comment or belief being offensive, are not good in situations, as on blogs, that call for discourse.

All it does is shut debate down and allow others (such as Lynx’s POV) to be claimed.

All claims of offense are a choice, so there is a willful component to such claims, usually meant to stifle debate and seize a ‘moral higher ground’.

CS, just as you find it rather offensive that religion be thought of as essentially destructive, I find it offensive that lack of religion is assumed to lead to all sorts of terrible destructive things.

Yes, I can understand that, and you have already commented on some of the comments I made which are much more nuanced than that. I don’t presume that lack of religion leads automatically to terrible, destructive things- but I do think that there’s a need to replace religion with some other structure if it were to be displaced. Even then, of course, I personally don’t think it would be sufficient (if I didn’t think that religious belief were the best support structure then I wouldn’t be a religious believer- I can’t contradict myself, I can only admit that humility which says that I know I could be wrong.)

To be honest, I really think that the lack of discussion of this concept (institutions which are the pillars of organized society) is part of the disconnect between Christians and agnostics/atheists. If those who don’t hold to religious beliefs would help others see that they do have a code of morality, then there’d be less distrust. You may find it offensive or irritating to have to ‘prove’ that (feeling that it should be assumed) but I’d say that historically one of the functions of organized religion has been to allow people to have some idea of what others believe, what morality they subscribe to. You can be annoyed at the fact that some people don’t automatically drop the need for that and give everyone the benefit of the doubt, but if your preference is to bridge the gap and have greater societal acceptance for your non-religious status (as in the complaints that atheists are discriminated against), you could choose to brush aside the annoyance and spend time calmly explaining what forms your value system. It may seem odd to you, but for people who’ve always experienced discussion of values in a religious context, it’s hard to grasp how any value based decisions could be made without a Deist perspective.

Scott from the Netherlands writes:

I was amused today when I sat down in the train and the man opposite me was reading one of the popular free daily-papers intended for commuters — on the cover was an article about “God” and lo, the picture they used was His Noodly Appendage himself!

The title of the article is “What is your God called?”

For added amusement, the article down and to the left from FSM’s appearance is about Bush censoring a report on climate change — the only thing missing is a reference to pirates!

Cosmo I asked the questions only to show that it’s a complicated subject, to say the least. My own answers would be.

1- No, of course not, no such tie has ever been proved and the evidence of it being false is everywhere.
2- No, but some sort of agreed upon moral framework is. It needn’t come from religious institutions, but it has to exist and be respected. Plenty of secular nations are showing more and more how this is the case.
3- Since I answered no before this question is rendered moot, but in any case obviously it can’t be just one “true religion” (partly because there’s no such thing) because otherwise all societies without that religion would be awash in chaos and immorality.
3- I dunno, but I’ve always assumed that it has it’s base in our evolutionary development with a big dose of cultural (which include religious) influence.
4- Probably yes, but I wouldn’t know which they were. For instance most cultures broadly think killing is bad, but most also make convenient “exceptions”. Killing young children I think would be a safe bet for something abhorred throughout history and culture.

CS- I think when most talk of religion as a destructive force we are talking of the institution, not a personal set of beliefs. Most institutions, by their aggregative nature, destroy individualism.

My main beef w all religion is that it is a divorce from reality. I see no benefit from it, just as I see no benefit from a belief in fairies, not sexually abusive aliens.

Lynx: ’1- Is religion necessary for personal morality?
2- Is religion necessary for societal morality or stability?
3- Supposing that religion is needed for morality which would it be? Is any religion good enough or does it have to be the “true” religion?
3- Where does our moral sense come from?
4- Are there really universal values? What are they?

Most people have very deeply felt answers, and things can get really touchy. Those of us who are atheist would do well to remember that to the religious this isn’t just some entertaining philosophical discussion, it touches something that they feel is essential to their life. The religious would do well to remember that there is no Rule that says that religion is exempt from being challenged, asked to give reasons and evidence, just as any other belief.’

Before I tackle the q’s, I think that religion and serious inquiry into the cosmos are innately opposing. Stephen Jay Gould’s idea of Non-Overlapping Magisteria is false. Yes, there are things, such as emotions and notions, which may never be chartable, but they are different from supernatural beings- be they gods, ghosts, or nymphs.

As for 1- manifestly not, although a non-believer is just as apt to be a serial killer or not as a theist. Neither belief would have anything to do with their perversion.

2- I’d say no. The very presence of secular democracies is proof of this.

3- A false q- both of them, and the very fact that all religions consider themselves to be #1, means all but one have to be wrong, yet the fact that all are likely wrong is not inconsistent with the posit.

4- Morals come from an authority- religious or Stalinist, perhaps. Ethics likely are an offshoot of evolutionary behaviors, such as altruism and symbiosis.

5- 100% universal. No. 99.9%. yes. But, even that opening leaves rooms for hundreds of claims.

The point is that extremism is wrong. The world is not all black and white, and not all gray. It is gray, with black and white at the fringes. Any other life would be sort of dull.

Spirituality, when tied with a religion or otherwise, is inherently personal. If it’s personal, what about it would point our “compasses” to the same north?

Religion, the institutions and the laws are what tell us how to think, it’s only there that the group mindset is created and that’s where the coercion (albeit subtle) comes in.

Moreover, agreeing on a set of rules does not require a religion. Religion only puts the force of god behind those rules. It’s a shortcut or a trick really. “Ummmm… I didn’t write these rules… god did! And… ummmm… you’ll go to hell if you don’t follow them!”

Only people who are completely uninformed on theology think that the idea of religion has to be to coerce people to behave through fear of damnation. There’s so much more to it than that, and you can either deny that or you can attempt to learn more about religions. Stating it as fact that this is what motivates people though is another strawman argument. If that’s all that religion was, a trick or coercion, then I’d agree with you that it should go by the wayside- but that’s not a true description of religion. For many, many, people (the vast majority of Christians I’ve ever known), we choose to follow a religion because we believe there is a Creator who made us each with a unique purpose, and we choose to orient our lives toward discovering and living out that purpose.

Most people have very deeply felt answers, and things can get really touchy. Those of us who are atheist would do well to remember that to the religious this isn’t just some entertaining philosophical discussion, it touches something that they feel is essential to their life. The religious would do well to remember that there is no Rule that says that religion is exempt from being challenged, asked to give reasons and evidence, just as any other belief.

Well said, Lynx. I do ask for the consideration that you suggest toward religious people, and I try my best to abide by the “religion shouldn’t be exempt from criticism” rule. I’m happy to rethink my positions if anyone finds instances where I cross that line.

I’m sorry, but the comments that suggest that religion has been a destructive force and should be abolished are highly offensive (cosmo, no need to point out your views that nothing is intrinsically offensive, I’ve heard it before and I disagree). Anyone who believes this is free to believe it, but a rational discussion would show that religion has been a force for both good and evil throughout history, and of course people who now practice religion feel that the times it’s been wielded for evil were when it was coapted by people who were not truly adhering to the faith. Atheists will think otherwise, that the religion itself lacks any redeeming qualities. Each is free to hold their own positions and provide evidence, and people who are on the fence might be swayed in one direction or another. When discussed calmly, even if the people on opposing sides still disagree, they might better understand each other in the end.

======

CS and Michael maintain that a well-oiled society is predicated standard of ethical behavior that everyone agrees on. It’s probably more accurate to say that a functioning society requires that most people agree to follow rules. They don’t have to like them, or believe in them, they just have to follow them. That’s in essence what we tell immigrants who move to America.

Moreover, agreeing on a set of rules does not require a religion. Religion only puts the force of god behind those rules. It’s a shortcut or a trick really. “Ummmm… I didn’t write these rules… god did! And… ummmm… you’ll go to hell if you don’t follow them!”

If there’s gonna be bloodshed, me and Jason Steck have to be involved. How dare CS and Doma get out of line. This is a blog, dammit, not a wrestling ring!

LOL, now I’m going to have to think of a schtick and a costume for my wrestling persona. Any suggestions?

My apologies for getting the conversation off track…carry on folks.