Morality Without Religion?

[Gilbert_Keith]

John Doran

and i’ll say it again, too: the natural law, written on the hearts of men by god, and available by the light of natural reason.

anatheist and i have said the same thing numerous different times on this thread, but to no avail.

AnAtheist never said* the natural law, written on the hearts of men by god …*

O.K. John. The natural law exists. The Catholic Church teaches the same thing. Right?

But how do you account for the fact that in atheist Russia the natural law produced no visible effect, while in America the dominance of the Christian faith has produced a society nowhere near so horrendous as 20 million slaughtered?

And how do you account for the fact that Russia finally gave up its official atheism if the natural law was sufficient glue to keep men from each other’s throats.

And John, it was because the natural law was not sufficient that Christ and the prophets came into the world to remove the blinders we had placed over the natural law so that we could not see it.

Do you agree with this, or do you agree with AnAtheist that the natural law (Kant’s version of the Golden Rule) is entirely sufficient to produce a well regulated society.

And if it was sufficient, why does Kant refer to the Bible as the greatest benefit the human race has ever experienced?

I guess we are both sounding like broken records at this point. But what does it take to get through … and why do you never answer the question.

Where do you find the moral glue? You expect everyone to read Kant and submit to the law. I’ll give you a hundred dollars for everyone who can even understand Kant!

Everyone understands Jesus. Nor was he concerned to place obscure phrases in the way of their understanding.

 

[john_doran]

Gilbert Keith:

But how do you account for the fact that in atheist Russia the natural law produced no visible effect, while in America the dominance of the Christian faith has produced a society nowhere near so horrendous as 20 million slaughtered?

waitasecond…i thought you said that 40 million unborn babies have been slaughtered in the US since roe vs. wade…
Gilbert Keith:

Do you agree with this, or do you agree with AnAtheist that the natural law (Kant’s version of the Golden Rule) is entirely sufficient to produce a well regulated society.

i don’t believe any kind of creed is sufficient to produce a well-regulated society - i believe that you require the right kind of leadership and the right kind of government and the right kind of citizens for that.

but i do believe that, say, a constitutional democracy with entrenched religious freedoms and a fairly comprehensive practice of value-neutrality, provides an adequate political framework for a stable society. the rest depends on about a trillion other factors.

look, i think the problem is that the question as you posed it is far too imprecise: the well-orderedness of a society depends on the complex interplay of so many variables, that trying to peg one or another as making it more or less likely, or worse, necessary, is a little bit facile; neither atheism nor christianity are necessary or sufficient conditions for a morally (un)rectifiable political order…
Gilbert Keith:

And if it was sufficient, why does Kant refer to the Bible as the greatest benefit the human race has ever experienced?

he was a christian, and presumably believed that the bible contains the fullness of truth as revealed by god…
Gilbert Keith:

Where do you find the moral glue? You expect everyone to read Kant and submit to the law. I’ll give you a hundred dollars for everyone who can even understand Kant!

i think you continue to misunderstand the point for which kant is merely an example: it’s not a matter of teaching kant as kant - it’s a matter of teaching people to do the right thing, part of which involves something like kant’s categorical imperative. but a much more useful formulation of the principle would be something closer to the golden rule: treat others as you wish to be treated; think none harm, say none harm, do none harm; be reasonable. and so on.

it really comes down to moral pedagogy. and reducing it to “don’t do x 'cos god will punish you” is not the way to teach children (or anyone else) how to live a good life. for me, it’s a matter of appealing to the moral convictions people already innately have. one of which, incidentally, would be “be loyal to your friends”. like god.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

John Doran

i don’t believe any kind of creed is sufficient to produce a well-regulated society - i believe that you require the right kind of leadership and the right kind of government and the right kind of citizens for that.

I agree. So did the founding fathers. And they believed you got those kind of leaders by following God rather than Nogod. See posts #1 and 15. Apparently you disagree with the vast majority of the founding fathers as well as Pope Leo XIII. “A state from which religion is banished can never be well regulated.” On the Christian Constitution of States, 1885

waitasecond…i thought you said that 40 million unborn babies have been slaughtered in the US since roe vs. wade…

Well, well. Was the Catholic Church all for that? Was the Christian community at large all for that? Or were the forces of hednonistic secularism for it? And all the abortionists who are without God (a-without, theos-god) and stood to profit thereby. And by the way, in this country, before the modern reign of secularism … abortion was generally viewed with horror. Even the early 19 century feminists condemned it.

*it really comes down to moral pedagogy. and reducing it to “don’t do x 'cos god will punish you” is not the way to teach children (or anyone else) *

Exactly what does “the fear of the Lord” preached in the old and new testaments mean to you? Does it not mean we can lose our immortal souls?

And why are you bringing children into this? Do you believe that we should never warn children about the consequences of bad actions?

That would be a nice, warm, fuzzy Dr. Spock way to bring up children, wouldn’t it? I’ll take the tough love Jesus preached when he talked about wanting to save us from fiery Gehenna.

 

[john_doran]

Gilbert Keith:

I agree. So did the founding fathers. And they believed you got those kind of leaders by following God rather than Nogod. See posts #1 and 15. Apparently you disagree with the vast majority of the founding fathers as well as Pope Leo XIII. “A state from which religion is banished can never be well regulated.” On the Christian Constitution of States, 1885

this is where my request that you define “atheist state” comes into play…

i am most emphatically not talking about a state where religion is banished - if you’ll note, i speak explicitly of a state with constitutionally entrenched religious freedom.

at the beginning, you were asking about the kind of objective morality to which atheists might appeal in order to glue a state together; to me, this is a question about an atheist leadership that comes into power, or a state where a significant number of the populace is atheist, but which is otherwise much like your garden variety liberal democracy.

so. if you believe, as you have stated numerous times that you do, that atheism does not necessitate an adherence to something like national socialism or communism, then i think we should just drop the constant appeal to (atheist) governments which systematically violate what we take to be constitutional freedoms.
Gilbert Keith:

Well, well. Was the Catholic Church all for that? Was the Christian community at large all for that? Or were the forces of hednonistic secularism for it? And all the abortionists who are without God (a-without, theos-god) and stood to profit thereby. And by the way, in this country, before the modern reign of secularism … abortion was generally viewed with horror. Even the early 19 century feminists condemned it.

the church was in the minority. as to what the beliefs of the majority might have been, i’d be willing to bet dollars for donuts that they weren’t all atheists.
Gilbert Keith:

Exactly what does “the fear of the Lord” preached in the old and new testaments mean to you? Does it not mean we can lose our immortal souls?

sure. fear of the lord is the beginning of wisdom. i just don’t think that fear of the lord is the first moral lesson that people should be taught. love is better than fear, and people are more liable to act well out of love than out of fear. or so i think.
Gilbert Keith:

And why are you bringing children into this?

because that’s where the seeds of a good, virtuous citizenry are sown.

you want to ensure the long life of a stable political order? make sure each generation is raised well.
Gilbert Keith:

Do you believe that we should never warn children about the consequences of bad actions?

no, i don’t believe that.

i just don’t think that fear of punishment should be the point of moral lessons.
Gilbert Keith:

That would be a nice, warm, fuzzy Dr. Spock way to bring up children, wouldn’t it? I’ll take the tough love Jesus preached when he talked about wanting to save us from fiery Gehenna.

and you’re welcome to it.

my son is 2.5 years old. my wife and i have always instructed him about what and what not to do gently, lovingly, and firmly. we have always explained that certain actions are not nice, and that they should not be done as a result. i have begun to teach him the golden rule.

my son is incredibly well behaved, polite, and, what’s more, incredibly bright and happy all the time. he has not thrown, nor does he throw tantrums when he doesn’t get to do what he wants to do.

so things seem to be working out pretty well so far.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

John Doran

*at the beginning, you were asking about the kind of objective morality to which atheists might appeal in order to glue a state together; to me, this is a question about an atheist leadership that comes into power, or a state where a significant number of the populace is atheist, but which is otherwise much like your garden variety liberal democracy.
*

It seems you’ve forgotten what this thread is about. See the first post.

***Do you believe that morality is a necessary spring for the public welfare?

If so, how would you create a national consensus of right and wrong (which is needed to enforce any law) in the absence of religion?**
*
The statement of the problem at first was purely theoretical. The atheist dream of a world without religion has come true. Now how would he find a moral glue to hold that society together?

It was only later that the ban on religion arose as part of our discussion and it arose as evidence of what kind of morality would exist in a world without religion or without religious leadership, as in the case of Hitler, Stalin, and Mao, who all suppressed religion.

This was only to bring the theoretical down to the practical.

Because you are stuck on the natural law and only the natural law, you fail to see what the world would be like without religion. I think this is because because it doesn’t fit in with what you want to see … a world perfectly adequate based on natural reason and no mention of God.

Tell me, is this what you think Pope Leo XIII taught and what the Catholic Church teaches today … that the natural law would suffice with the Scriptures and Church authority … and without the many cautions Jesus put out about why we should fear for our immortal souls?

Yes or no?

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

John Doran

so things seem to be working out pretty well so far.

I know you will be a great father.

 

[AnAtheist]

john doran:

i think you continue to misunderstand the point for which kant is merely an example: it’s not a matter of teaching kant as kant - it’s a matter of teaching people to do the right thing,

You take the words right out of my mouth. One can argue ad hominem in a positive and a negative way. It is of no consequence for the proposed philosophy, whether Kant was a Christian, Muslim or Pagan. Just like it is of no consequence for the relativity theory, whether Einstein was a Jew, a Deist or an Agnostic.

 

[john_doran]

Gilbert Keith:

Because you are stuck on the natural law and only the natural law, you fail to see what the world would be like without religion. I think this is because because it doesn’t fit in with what you want to see … a world perfectly adequate based on natural reason and no mention of God.

again, i think we’re talking past each other here: i did not understand you to be talking about a state in which the practice and pursuit of religion has been prohibited; nor did i understand you to be referring to a world where there has never actually been any religion; i took “world without religion” to be roughly synonymous with “atheist state”, and i took that to mean something like “state run by atheist leadership”, or “state in which the majority is atheist”, or “state in which law-making is procedurally atheist”.
Gilbert Keith:

Tell me, is this what you think Pope Leo XIII taught and what the Catholic Church teaches today … that the natural law would suffice with the Scriptures and Church authority … and without the many cautions Jesus put out about why we should fear for our immortal souls?

Yes or no?

i think there are a host of morally rectifiable political systems, one of which would be a well-ordered catholic theocracy. but there are other governments that are basically good that are not theocratic…

look, we’re talking about political philosophy here, and even catholic political philosophy doesn’t insist on an identity of church and state…

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

AnAtheist

You take the words right out of my mouth. One can argue ad hominem in a positive and a negative way. It is of no consequence for the proposed philosophy, whether Kant was a Christian, Muslim or Pagan. Just like it is of no consequence for the relativity theory, whether Einstein was a Jew, a Deist or an Agnostic.

All Kant was doing basically was agreeing with the Catholic Church on the natural law issue. But he went beyond that in his remark about the Bible, affirming that the world is a better place because of the Bible.

Just like it is of no consequence for the relativity theory, whether Einstein was a Jew, a Deist or an Agnostic.

But it was of consequence to Einstein’s theory that he was an agnostic. Being an agnostic he chose to believe that the universe was uncreated, infinite, and eternal. No God needed. When LeMaitre, the young Jesuit mathematician pointed out to him that he had fudged the math in his relativity theory to confirm the infinity of the universe, Einstein refused to believe it. Later, however, he conceded that the Jesuit’s insight was valid, and that insight paid off through Hubble’s telescopic view of an expanding universe, which Einstein came to accept. He called his own error the greatest “blunder of my life” because it robbed him of seeing his way to what later became known as the Big Bang theory of a universe that was finite and created at a moment in time.

Just like it is of no consequence for the relativity theory, whether Einstein was a Jew, a Deist or an Agnostic.

And it was of no consequence that the atheist Hitler’s politics was driven by his persecution of Jews, Catholics and Protestants?

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

John Doran

look, we’re talking about political philosophy here, and even catholic political philosophy doesn’t insist on an identity of church and state…

See here, John, why are you creating a straw man to attack?

Where did I ever say there must be identity of Church and State? I’ve already quoted the founding fathers in posts# 1 and 15 who made no such reference to the identification of Church and State … who obviously were very much opposed to that. But these quotes posted indicate they were very much in favor of religion as the moral glue that keeps the state stable and on track. Absent that religion, they feared the worst.

 

[john_doran]

Gilbert Keith:

See here, John, why are you creating a straw man to attack?

Where did I ever say there must be identity of Church and State? I’ve already quoted the founding fathers in posts# 1 and 15 who made no such reference to the identification of Church and State … who obviously were very much opposed to that. But these quotes posted indicate they were very much in favor of religion as the moral glue that keeps the state stable and on track. Absent that religion, they feared the worst.

ok, look - it’s hard for me to pin you down to anything here because not only do you never define your terms, but your statements and questons lack precision and as a result seem to be saying a lot of things about a lot of things without much focus.

we’re talking about the possiblity of a stable atheist state, whatever that means. this is a question of political (and perhaps anthropological) philosophy.

when you ask me a question in that context about the need for scripture, church authority and fear for our immortal souls, how am i supposed to understand it?

i mean, i keep telling you that i think that it’s possible to have a morally rectifiable political order that makes no reference to god or any particular religion; and then you ask me if i think that the church teaches that it’s really possible without scripture, ecclesiastical authority, and fear for our immortal souls…i am at a loss to understand how it’s not obvious to you that such a question reasonably implies a synonymy with “do you think that (the church teaches that) it’s possible to have a stable political order without a state religion”.

if (you think that) the church teaches that you can’t have good politics without church authority, scriptural authority, and a general fear, in the populace, for their immortal souls, then how would that not be teaching that good government is necessarily religious government?

but whatever. i’m tired of the semantic game. i don’t know what you mean half the time, gilbert, so all i can do is take your words at face value…

here’s your question again:
Gilbert Keith:

Tell me, is this what you think Pope Leo XIII taught and what the Catholic Church teaches today … that the natural law would suffice with the Scriptures and Church authority … and without the many cautions Jesus put out about why we should fear for our immortal souls?

Yes or no?

yes.

(a final example of what i’m talking about re: the ambiguity of your posts: suffice for what, exactly?)

 

[AnAtheist]

Gilbert Keith:

But it was of consequence to Einstein’s theory that he was an agnostic. …] When LeMaitre, the young Jesuit mathematician pointed out to him that he had fudged the math in his relativity theory to confirm the infinity of the universe, Einstein refused to believe it.

I am not quite sure, what you are talking about here, except that it is utter nonsense. What exactly are you refering to? The cosmological constant? G_mn - L_mn = 8piT_mn ?

And it was of no consequence that the atheist Hitler’s politics was driven by his persecution of Jews, Catholics and Protestants?

That is a question of a different kind. Following the above pattern, it must be formulated as “Is it of no consequence to Hitler’s politics, whether he was an atheist, a Catholic or a Hindu.” And yes, it is of no consequence, the ones killed by his policy are dead, no matter what Hitler was.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

John Doran

but whatever. i’m tired of the semantic game

I’m tired of it too. I think you just like to disagree. You certainly manage to distort about everything I’ve said to suit your own game.

We probably have nothing more to talk about.

God bless,
Gilbert

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

AnAtheist

Originally Posted by Gilbert Keith
But it was of consequence to Einstein’s theory that he was an agnostic. …] When LeMaitre, the young Jesuit mathematician pointed out to him that he had fudged the math in his relativity theory to confirm the infinity of the universe, Einstein refused to believe it.

Your reply was:

I am not quite sure, what you are talking about here, except that it is utter nonsense. What exactly are you refering to? The cosmological constant? G_mn - L_mn = 8piT_mn ?

You lack education in the history of science.

If you’re up to it, your next reading assignment is Chapter 3 of God and the Astronomers by Robert Jastrow.

Jatrow was a Professor of Astronomy at Columbia University and a Professor of Earth Sciences at Dartmouth College. He was the founder and director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies. He was host for more than 100 CBS Network programs on space science.

Nonsense? I don’t think so.

What are your credentials?

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

I am asking that we now get back to the point of this thread and not get sidetracked into what could be another interesting thread.

Where does the moral glue come from in a completely atheist society?

It does not suffice for the atheist to say simply: “Immanuel Kant and the Categorical Imperative.” How does that differ substantially from Jesus Christ and the Golden Rule? How many of the masses could follow Kant? How many more could follow Jesus Christ?

In the absence of God, there must not merely be the natural law, there must be an authority that promotes the natural law in the civil law. Where does this authority come from if every man is allowed to define his own morality? How does the state build consensus of what the laws should be without reference to an absolute standard? Without such a standard, without religion in alliance with the state **(***not controlling the state), *who decides what the laws should be?

If a man says “I shall have as many wives as I like,” shall the law protect him? If a man says, sex with consenting children should be protected by law, shall the law protect him? If an abortionist says I want to kill unborn children, shall the state protect him and all the others just because they have separate moral codes from others. This is a recipe for collective madness.

So by what authority in a totally atheist state would laws of any kind be imposed on the masses at large that would make people more likely to adhere to the general code than to go against it with their own?

This is the elephant in the room that no one seems willing to address except by the vaguest and weakest reference to Immanuel Kant … himself an advocate of the Bible as the greatest gift to mankind.

The natural law and God together … to be sure.

 

[AnAtheist]

Gilbert Keith:

You lack education in the history of science.

If you’re up to it, your next reading assignment is Chapter 3 of God and the Astronomers by Robert Jastrow.

Perhaps you should simply answer the question.

Nonsense? I don’t think so.

What are your credentials?

I have a degree in physics, one of my exams was cosmology and general relativity theory. I ask again, what is the flaw in Einstein’s calculations and why is that flaw due to his belief?

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

AnAtheist

There is no point in my answering you because I don’t claim an authority anywhere near Jastrow’s. Apparently you do.

But it seems you are afraid to read Jastrow and answer him.

Am I right?

I stand on my reference to Jastrow and invite everyone here to read Jastrow and judge for yourselves whether he is “nonsense.”

Now can we please get back to the subject of this thread?

 

[john_doran]

Gilbert Keith:

I’m tired of it too. I think you just like to disagree. You certainly manage to distort about everything I’ve said to suit your own game.

the problem, of course, is that i don’t know what you’re talking about…

 

[AnAtheist]

Gilbert Keith:

Now can we please get back to the subject of this thread?

No, not yet.

I stand on my reference to Jastrow and invite everyone here to read Jastrow and judge for yourselves whether he is “nonsense.”

You claimed, that Einstein made a mistake in his calculations, ***because ***he was an agnostic. Perhaps that book backs up that accusation, if I find it the library, I will have a look. And yes, it is an accusation, as no scientist should let his personal beliefs mess around with mathematics.

The only thing I can think of here is the cosmological constant, which is an arbitrary constant, that appears in any integral. Einstein saw no physical reason to introduce an arbitrary value, therefore he arbitrarily set it to 0, which was wrong as others have pointed out. But he didn’t say, “oops, if I set any other value than 0, then God must exist, oh my, oh my, that’s against my belief, better set it to 0”, which is basically what you imply (or Jastrow implies, I still have to check that).

Interesting sidenote: There is some evidence, that this constant actually is 0. But anyway, from GRT alone there is no reason to a priori assume that.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

AnAtheist

*You claimed, that Einstein made a mistake in his calculations, **because **he was an agnostic. *
No, I didn’t say precisely that Jastrow said this. But it is widely known that Einstein was an agnostic and that he believed the universe was infinite and eternal. He there resisted the direction that relativity would have led to, whereas Lemaitre, a Jesuit, was more open to the idea of a finite and created universe which the Big Bang proves.

The rest of the account from Jastrow is in his book. That einstein refused to follow the mathematics of the Big Bang at first when it was proposed to him through LeMaitre. Later he came around, as Jastrow points out, by looking through Hubble’s telescope and observing for himself the expanding universe predicted by Lemaitre’s math but not Einstein’s.

To his credit (I can’t recall if this is in Jastrow’s book, I’ve read it somewhere) Einstein later nominated LeMaitre for a prestigious scientific award for his contribution to the Big Bang theory … which he won.