Letters to the Editor
-
Sick
"They miss the moral core of Judaism and Christianity -- the theme of social justice, which takes those who are marginalized and brings them to the center of society" -- and then burn them at the stake. Religion, unchecked, is violent madness.
AR
-
To the guy who was asking about Free Will.
Free will is a concept, and thus doesn't specifically exist (Pretty much like the concept of zero.)
That said; without a God there is nothing to stop one having what one would term "Free will." Indeed, a deterministic universe where there is a God, or Fate if you prefer, would nullify free will as it is a concept based on there being no authority directing our decisions.
So, while you argue "Why," the atheist response would be "Why not?"
Further, on morality. Religion teaches certain ideals of morality but does not actually teach morality itself. What defines morality is not what we do for fear of punishment or want of reward, but rather what we do because we want a better world to live in and the best contribution we can make towards that is via our own actions.
You are not a moral person because you think that some all loving father in the sky will torture you for all eternity if you aren't, you are a moral person because you care for your fellow human being, for the world you live in, and for your self-image.
The offer of reward is thus meaningless from an atheist point of view because reward is not why we act well, and punishment is equally meaningless, as it doesn't nullify whatever harm we have done.
This is why it horrifies atheists when the religious make claims about morality being based on God. If the only reason why a theist isn't out there lying, cheating, murdering and raping people is the threat of eternal torment and the promise of eternal reward, it says something frightening about the theist.
Fortunately, most atheists don't believe this to be the case. You do not think of God or Jesus when you take pity on somebody, you think of that somebody and that is because you are a good person who wants to make the world a better place to live in.
-
@ An honest answer
First, thanks for an interesting and reasoned response.
Second, I should probably clarify...when I mean agent, I'm not referring to God, karma or any cosmic score keeper. My question is more, without choice, or with only the appearance of choice what do we do with ethics? What can we?
I agree wholeheartedly with what you say about choice. If there is a God, I hope He/She/It does not intervene for reasons you just gave - human moral freedom.
I guess my concern is that, in the face of fundamentalism, humanism and science seem to go hand in hand. But one day if (when) that threat is gone, will my humanist beliefs stand long in the face of skepticism? I operate on the assumption of free will. Evidence seems to point away from it.
It's so simple when a caricature of a bible thumper provides such an inviting target. It allows me to ignore the improbable rifts that exist in my own beliefs. But one day will I be reading (and having to decide on) a future series of articles on whether it is possible to reconcile humanism and science?
Again, it's simple to defend the Constitution from the 'America was always a Christian Nation' crowd (although I am from a country where this isn't much of a concern). But left unspoken is whether once rescued from Fundamentalists, the beliefs of the Founding Fathers any more supportable even free from such claims. So many of our assumptions about 'freedom', 'choice' and 'equality' may prove just as flimsy when our turn comes.
-
@ Taliesan
Thanks to you as well for intelligent thought!
The offer of reward is thus meaningless from an atheist point of view because reward is not why we act well,
And at the risk of others assuming they know what I think or believe, I will ask for the sake of discussion: do you think it has always been this way? Myself, I wonder. I'm not saying that reward/punishment morality is optimal, or even appropriate now. Rather: was it a required stepping stone. Is it still for some people?
This is why Fundamentalist scare me, but thoughtful religious folks don't (regardless of (dis)agreement). The Fundamentalist wishes to lock morality at an earlier stage. One that may or may not have been required as we developed. I find religious texts fascinating and I appreciate even their horrors. Like the brain, these texts are a record of layer after layer of new thought and thinking. I view the blood and fire stage of moral development like I view some of the fight or flight reactions of my 'older' brain elements. Part of the continuous chain that leads here.
-
Garbage
Salon, why do you post this drivel? I am cancelling my subscription.
-
RE: Nkennedy and Honest Questions......
You've gotta love the slopy thinking exposed by our raving atheists here. take this example from Nkennedy in response to the honest questions..(well after offering snark and insults)
"Whether we "actually" have free will or not is immaterial. We "feel" like we have free will, and for the purpose of ethics, society, and law, we have to act like it to some extent. Just because free will doesn't exist doesn't mean it isn't a decent descriptive model." -Nkennedy
Now notice here that our raving atheist now states that it is "immaterial" whetehr or not "free will" exists, what matters is that he "feels" it does and so we have to "act" like it does, and even though it doesnt exist doesnt means it is a "decent descriptive model"
Now change the word free will to God, and we get
"
"Whether we "actually" have (a God) or not is immaterial. We "feel" like we have (a spirit), and for the purpose of ethics, society, and law, we have to act like it to some extent. Just because (God/transendence) doesn't exist doesn't mean it isn't a decent descriptive model."
Of course, the second a person -who isnt the straw man bible thumper all the atheists love to argue- were to say this- well atheists will then be calling him a coward, a loon etc for saying so. Yet here we have an example of an atheist who uses the same rationalizations as a theist while looking down from his perch at them.
This is exactly why we agnostics find both sides so tiring. Each has staked out a claim, fails to define terms, and are intent on nothing more than taking the world view that suits them as a "good description" for reality and then does their mightiest to convince themselves and others they hold Truth by the Balls.