A World without Religion?

[Charlemagne_III]

There’s no reason to blame the Senate for ending the republic- the republic was ended by ambitious military men seizing power, often times circumventing the Senate entirely (Caesar, as consul, operated largely by calling on the tribal assemblies.

One suspects that the founders were more worried with one religion imposing itself on all, rather than a blanket ban on religion.

Not really. Jefferson was a contemporary of Voltaire, had been to France, and had imbibed much of French and British philosophy. Given his own hostility toward atheism, he most likely would have agreed with Voltaire that the Roman empire fell at least partly because Romans had ceased to believe in their gods, their gods being eminently unbelievable. They had lost the unifying principle of morality that religion provides.

The Founders generally could see the direction in which France was headed, given the hostility of its leading philosophers toward religion, and indeed that promise of homicidal anarchy was fulfilled later with the French Revolution. It could not happen in America because the 1st Amendment protected freedom of religion, and as long as that freedom was protected, the atheists, as A. Lincoln later said, would forever find
religion a hard nut to crack.

 

[Aloysium]

The belief in a divine law giver can create problems of its own. It’s all well and good when the divine wants you to be non-violent. Not so much when he wants mountains of human hearts (Mesoamerica), the lives of your children (Phonecia, possibly), or the death of infidels and heretics (pretty much every where, at varying times). As noted earlier, Hitler’s anti-Semitic were at least partially justified by Christianity.

A divinely received morality need not be a good one- I happen to object to several bits of the Christian one, as outlined earlier.

What!! You have to get back to church and the eucharist. This is truly bizarre.

 

[Peter_Plato]

A divinely received morality need not be a good one- I happen to object to several bits of the Christian one, as outlined earlier.

Your ability to define what you mean by any morality being “a good one” based purely upon metaphysical naturalism is questionable.

I would happily ask you to provide your criterion for what constitutes a “good” morality based upon WHATEVER you choose to provide as a grounding, but I suspect you, too, will dodge that question under the guise that “good” is subjective and therefore undefinable.

Ergo you assume the unassailable position that you can judge moral systems other than your own as “good” or not, at the same time as declining to say what “good” actually means.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

An assertion I emphatically reject. Certainty there are some psychological and historical reasons why some religions have prospered and others failed- a doctrine of evangelizing being a key component, I think. But to assume that it’s somehow related to the extent to which a given religion is true is a pretty huge leap. Among other things, it presupposes that any religion does a decent job of explaining the observable world.

It’s true that evangelizing is a key component. But evangelizing can be a component of a good or a bad religion. You can evangelize with the gospel, or you can evangelize with the sword. Christians have tried both, and history has proved the gospel always evangelizes better than the word.

Some religions are not at all decent. They are sham religions, such as the old Thugee religion of India that required human sacrifice. The British Christian military invaded India and ran the Thugees underground. So any religion does not necessarily do a decent job of explaining the world, and some religions do a lot better job than others of explaining the world. Atheism does not even try to explain the world, since there is no explanation even to be found other than metaphysical materialism and determinism.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Ergo you assume the unassailable position that you can judge moral systems other than your own as “good” or not, at the same time as declining to say what “good” actually means.

:clapping:

 

[AnimalSpirits]

How so?

Can you supply which Christian beliefs specifically “justified" Hitler’s anti-Semitic activities?

I am NOT speaking here of how Hitler may have twisted the narrative to suit his cause but, rather, foundational Christian tenets or teachings which directly entail anti-Semitism.

You’ve moved the goal posts, I think. Recall that we were discussing how atheists, with no moral ground, can justify anything and only use of force can stop them. My point is that religious belief systems have been used to justify atrocities to no less effect.

Whether or not Christianity “truly” promotes the persecution of the Jews us quite irrelevant. The texts say what they say- the interpretation and implementation are left to the reader. The fact is that it can and has been used to do just that, going all the way back to some of the so called church fathers.

 

[AnimalSpirits]

Your ability to define what you mean by any morality being “a good one” based purely upon metaphysical naturalism is questionable.

I would happily ask you to provide your criterion for what constitutes a “good” morality based upon WHATEVER you choose to provide as a grounding, but I suspect you, too, will dodge that question under the guise that “good” is subjective and therefore undefinable.

Ergo you assume the unassailable position that you can judge moral systems other than your own as “good” or not, at the same time as declining to say what “good” actually means.

Good, in this case, should be understood to mean “pleasing to the reader.”

It’s not central to the argument- the point is that a morality purporting to represent divine will can still be used to justify actions that we (both of us) find abominable.

 

[AnimalSpirits]

It’s true that evangelizing is a key component. But evangelizing can be a component of a good or a bad religion. You can evangelize with the gospel, or you can evangelize with the sword. Christians have tried both, and history has proved the gospel always evangelizes better than the word.

Some religions are not at all decent. They are sham religions, such as the old Thugee religion of India that required human sacrifice. The British Christian military invaded India and ran the Thugees underground. So any religion does not necessarily do a decent job of explaining the world, and some religions do a lot better job than others of explaining the world. Atheism does not even try to explain the world, since there is no explanation even to be found other than metaphysical materialism and determinism.

Whether or not a religion requires the believer to do things which I find bad doesn’t really contribute to whether or not it explains the physical world very well. If the Thugees god(s) had told them that the universe was 14.6 billion years old, that humans had originated in Africa and spread across the globe over tens of thousands of years, or that e=mc2, then that would quite impressive.

 

[Peter_Plato]

You’ve moved the goal posts, I think. Recall that we were discussing how atheists, with no moral ground, can justify anything and only use of force can stop them. My point is that religious belief systems have been used to justify atrocities to no less effect.

Whether or not Christianity “truly” promotes the persecution of the Jews us quite irrelevant. The texts say what they say- the interpretation and implementation are left to the reset. The fact is that it can and has been used to do just that, going all the way back to some of the so called church fathers.

No, there are clear moral grounds to be derived from classical theism and Christianity proper. Those moral grounds can be used to demonstrate whether nominally “Christian" behaviour can be justified or not FROM those clear moral grounds.

Those grounds are often the same ones used by atheists to criticize hypocritical behaviour on the part of Christians or theists.

Atheism, on the other hand, provides NO MORAL GROUNDS whatsoever.

Which takes me back to the point you seem to be attempting to avoid…

A divinely received morality need not be a good one- I happen to object to several bits of the Christian one, as outlined earlier.

On what grounds do YOU judge whether any moral system is “good” or not?

AND:

On what grounds – in particular, uniquely atheist or naturalistic grounds – do you object to “several bits of the Christian [morality]?”

This is not “moving the goalposts,” it is asking you to set them down in the first place so we can see where they stand before be decide whether your game will have a fair set of rules or a clearly defined set of goalposts to begin with.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

You’ve moved the goal posts, I think. Recall that we were discussing how atheists, with no moral ground, can justify anything and only use of force can stop them. My point is that religious belief systems have been used to justify atrocities to no less effect.

Whether or not Christianity “truly” promotes the persecution of the Jews us quite irrelevant. The texts say what they say- the interpretation and implementation are left to the reset. The fact is that it can and has been used to do just that, going all the way back to some of the so called church fathers.

You can cherry pick those eras of enmity between Christians and Jews all you like.

The Vatican did not organize or approve the Holocaust. In fact, many Jews were given safe passage and protection by Catholics from the anti-Christian, anti-Semitic fury of Hitler. On the other hand, religious leaders from the Arab world were happy to advise Hitler on how best to dispose of the “Jewish vermin.”

From the time of the Egyptians through the Persian and Roman Empires and the Middle Ages right up to Hitler, the Jews have been hunted down, oppressed, enslaved, tortured, and killed by the millions. They have a sad history. How much of their sadness they brought upon themselves is problematic. Today they are in danger of annihilation by yet another ancient foe already preparing the great weapon of annihilation. It is not the Catholic Church that is preparing that weapon. But it is the Vatican from the time of Pope Pius XII on which has condemned the use of it.

 

[AnimalSpirits]

Not really. Jefferson was a contemporary of Voltaire, had been to France, and had imbibed much of French and British philosophy. Given his own hostility toward atheism, he most likely would have agreed with Voltaire that the Roman empire fell at least partly because Romans had ceased to believe in their gods, their gods being eminently unbelievable. They had lost the unifying principle of morality that religion provides.

The Founders generally could see the direction in which France was headed, given the hostility of its leading philosophers toward religion, and indeed that promise of homicidal anarchy was fulfilled later with the French Revolution. It could not happen in America because the 1st Amendment protected freedom of religion, and as long as that freedom was protected, the atheists, as A. Lincoln later said, would forever find
religion a hard nut to crack.

Do you have any evidence that there had been a collapse in religious belief in the years leading up the fall of the republic? That would be a necessary, but not.sufficient condition, for your claim to be true.

Moreover, do you have any evidence that the founders (in 1789 or prior) were specifically worried about a France like situation? Considering several early colonies were founded by people looking to practice their own religion that was being suppressed by the church of England, it seems that the fear of a mandatory state religion was more pressing.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Whether or not a religion requires the believer to do things which I find bad doesn’t really contribute to whether or not it explains the physical world very well. If the Thugees god(s) had told them that the universe was 14.6 billion years old, that humans had originated in Africa and spread across the globe over tens of thousands of years, or that e=mc2, then that would quite impressive.

Ah, I see. Atheistic scientism is your religion. I’ll bet it keeps your feet and heart warm on cold winter nights.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Do you have any evidence that there had been a collapse in religious belief in the years leading up the fall of the republic? That would be a necessary, but not.sufficient condition, for your claim to be true.

Moreover, do you have any evidence that the founders (in 1789 or prior) were specifically worried about a France like situation? Considering several early colonies were founded by people looking to practice their own religion that was being suppressed by the church of England, it seems that the fear of a mandatory state religion was more pressing.

As to your first point, answering it adequately would require more time and energy than I can expend. It’s generally accepted by scholars that the Revolution was a simultaneous attack on the monarchy and the Church. The atheist philosopher Diderot was the ringleader of the attack on the Church. The manner in which this bloody revolution was conducted made clear to the world that the people mounting it lacked all religious scruples, much as Stalin and Mao lacked them when they created bloody havoc in Russia and China.

As to your second point, you seem to be arbitrarily narrowing the focus of the Founders on where they had come from. They were also focused on where they were heading. The Constitution was that very focus, to learn from the past of all human history, not just their own. That is why the Constitution is such a marvel of political philosophy. It was an attempt to cover all the bases that had never been covered before in any other Constitution in the history of the world. That would include protecting religious institutions. You notice, of course, that the Constitution says nothing at all about protecting atheism.

 

[AnimalSpirits]

No, there are clear moral grounds to be derived from classical theism and Christianity proper. Those moral grounds can be used to demonstrate whether nominally “Christian" behaviour can be justified or not FROM those clear moral grounds.

And what grounds are those? Were they followed during the eras of the Crusades and later colonialism (by the Church in particular)? If not, then I posit that these moral grounds can’t be said to be “clear” at all. Who’s to say what Christians in the year 3000 will think is a clear consequence of their faith (assuming humanity and Christianity are still around).

Which takes me back to the point you seem to be attempting to avoid…

On what grounds do YOU judge whether any moral system is “good” or not?

AND:

On what grounds – in particular, uniquely atheist or naturalistic grounds – do you object to “several bits of the Christian [morality]?”

This is not “moving the goalposts,” it is asking you to set them down in the first place so we can see where they stand before be decide whether your game will have a fair set of rules or a clearly defined set of goalposts to begin with.

The former was answered in a previous post. I was being colloquial in my use of the term “good.” I like my moral code- following it rewards me with good feelings. Part of that is that I like seeing other people being able to enjoy their lives to the best of their ability. I see, for example, opposition to embryonic stem cell research and abortion as contrary to that.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Good, in this case, should be understood to mean “pleasing to the reader.”

It’s not central to the argument- the point is that a morality purporting to represent divine will can still be used to justify actions that we (both of us) find abominable.

Morality, as far as moral agents are concerned, relates to what is obligatory for all moral agents. If we cannot agree upon that as a beginning, then there is no point talking about morality.

Morality in this sense can only derive from that which is objectively and ontologically “good.” There is no sense in grounding morality on what is “pleasing to the reader” since there is no way that such a definition of “good” can ever provide a grounds for moral obligation.

It seems a bit incoherent to say some act is morally “wrong,” while adding with muffled breath, “only if you think it is wrong.” The entire concept of morality evaporates with that qualification.

Speaking of “moving the goalposts,” such a “move” on your part is tantamount to playing the game with an imagined set where the “reader” is free to move them whenever s/he decides the movement is “pleasing” to them.

What you are doing is playing to “the reader” in the hopes that your token nod to them will conduce them to overlook the fact that you have no compelling argument to make.

 

[AnimalSpirits]

Ah, I see. Atheistic scientism is your religion. I’ll bet it keeps your feet and heart warm on cold winter nights.

We’re talking about explaining the natural world- if a people thousands of years ago had received knowledge truly beyond their means, rather than done neat poetry (the world was made x years ago, planets and people are made out of dust from supernovas), that’s the sort of thing I was going for.

Scientism is not a thing- unless you want to call “we can learn stuff about the world by looking at it” a religion.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I like my moral code- following it rewards me with good feelings. Part of that is that I like seeing other people being able to enjoy their lives to the best of their ability. I see, for example, opposition to embryonic stem cell research and abortion as contrary to that.

“Good feelings” and “enjoyment” strongly suggest a hedonistic base to your ethical system.

I think I’ve seen that in some of your earlier posts, not sure about that.

Anyway, “good feelings” might appropriately accompany the doing of morally right acts, but they cannot be the sole criterion. We have to do morally right things because they are the right things to do, not because they give us pleasure or enjoyment. Indeed, sometimes the morally right thing to do gives people a pain in the buttocks.

Unless I’ve completely misread you, I fail to see how abortion helps the fetus to enjoy his life to the best of his ability.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Scientism is not a thing- unless you want to call “we can learn stuff about the world by looking at it” a religion.

It is a religion in the sense that upon it and only it all things are to be ultimately explained.

That’s one reason perhaps why so many scientists prefer Buddhism to Christianity.

In Buddhism the gods can be safely ignored, as our resident Buddhist likes to remind us.

 

[Peter_Plato]

The former was answered in a previous post. I was being colloquial in my use of the term “good.” I like my moral code- following it rewards me with good feelings. Part of that is that I like seeing other people being able to enjoy their lives to the best of their ability. I see, for example, opposition to embryonic stem cell research and abortion as contrary to that.

So a moral code is that which provides the moral agent – assuming your use of “me” is a placeholder for “moral agent” – with “good feelings?”

Will you let that definition stand as such?

Or do you wish to qualify “moral agent” as having to meet some minimum standard to be counted?

Does it mean, for example, that if for some moral agents their “good feelings” arise from what you see as untoward or despicable activities, you would then NOT agree to their use of the word “good” merely because it provides those individuals with “pleasure?"

Do you see what I am getting at here? Defining moral “good” by what gives pleasure still leaves open the question of whether any moral agent SHOULD be pleased by what does, in fact, please them. That SHOULD requires an accounting which you haven’t provided.

 

[Peter_Plato]

The former was answered in a previous post. I was being colloquial in my use of the term “good.” I like my moral code- following it rewards me with good feelings. Part of that is that I like seeing other people being able to enjoy their lives to the best of their ability. I see, for example, opposition to embryonic stem cell research and abortion as contrary to that.

Abortion, does indeed, deprive other distinct human beings of the ability to enjoy their lives to the best of their abilities.

If you were aborted before birth you would have been completely deprived of “good feelings’ along with the ability to enjoy your life to the best of YOUR ability.