Letters to the Editor
-
anonymous 2,
your college analogy, to my atheist ears, still sounds somewhat pejorative. I'd view it in an opposite light, with the atheist represented by the scholar who completes graduate school with a Phd. in history.
Your average believer, au contraire, is the high school drop-out who subscribes to the sentiment I once heard expressed while waiting in line at a movie theatre in Redding, California: "I don't read much except the bible. Everything worth knowing is in there." I've since been in more than a few evangelical homes where the only publications in evidence were the bible and a copy of People magazine. Sustenance for the soul indeed.
-
Didn't mean to sound pejorative
>your college analogy, to my atheist ears, still sounds somewhat pejorative.
Didn't mean it pejoratively at all. Just that, if the quality or tool is book learning/moral character, the institution is college/your religion, and that the self-made person/atheist prefers to build the quality/tool outside of the institution.
If it sounds pejorative because it sounds like the atheist in the construct doesn't value the tool, that's not the case; he/she just doesn't do his/her best work in the _institution._ Of course, many atheists value the college, and many self-made men and women who never go to college value church. But you'll note that in my construct, both the religious person and the atheist have their share of lazy, stupid people, and their share of fine, industrious and intelligent people. Both atheist and religious are well-educated, it's just that one educates themselves outside of an institution, just as the atheists hopefully educate themselves as to treating people well, outside of the institution of the church.
If it just sounds pejorative because the atheist should be the intelligent one in any analogy, then I don't think either side gets to be the intelligent one and the other side the stupidass goobers ;)
-
Can I Too Beat the Dead Horse, Still?
Zeke, I meant no insult to differ with deluxe that we veered off course, but to accentuate that the existence of God necessarily implies authority, which is a theme running through Armstrong's work. Past letter writers noted how odd it seemed that people were debating the existence of God. I mostly agree.
In lieu of that, there's the question of authority. Upon what ethical basis should humans live? If God is the active force portrayed in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, then how much of God's law, versus laws created by humans, should we follow? And if there's no God, upon what basis should our ethics rely on for the sake of sustaining social harmony? My contention, and it appears, at times, deluxe has agreed, is that atheists have had a difficult time formulating a broad based set of values that would not demonize believers - if for no other reason than they're the majority - and serve as normative social rules.
If this were a horse race, the believers are way ahead, which has not always been advantageous for humankind. Humans in general, regardless of their spiritual affiliation, would benefit from a more proactive, respectful, and wise participation by secularists and atheists in contributing to that cause. Demystifying and debunking the wine-into-water components of religion are not enough. For the sake of argument, let's say this thread has undone a believer's belief; now that the rug has been pulled from beneath her/his feet, then what is the alternative? Simply not believing in superstitions or false religions isn't enough to guide a person who's lost religion, or one who's never believed in it. There are still needs for a sacred arena, purposes higher than pure self-interest, decency, charity, civility, a broad-based sense of community that laws alone should not be expected to enforce, and cannot possibly enforce. America's exceptionally high incarceration rate is proof of that. How many criminals are actually deterred by the law? What if they were more wisely guided by acquired ethics?
This may sound like Scrooge, but the overwhelming devotion given to the ideal of the supremacy of the Golden Rule may be a noble sentiment but not a very practical ethical strategy. Zeke, this addresses two of your points: my argument isn't that America's secular government failed, but that its skeletal, libertarian plan - the founders' blueprint for America - was based on the ethics supporting the Invisible Hand (the Enlightenment's Golden Rule) that overestimated the potential for humans to naturally act moral so that the government could remain essentially libertarian. They were wrong because in having distanced themselves from religious sentiments, they no longer concentrated on the impetus that inspired the formation of religions, namely what the Hebrew prophets called Original Sin. Islam doesn't rely on this concept, but features devils and evils that are figuratively related to the essence of what Original Sin was intended to represent - instinctual impulses that lead individuals into moral difficulties.
In Genesis, the Hebrew prophets captured, inchoately and metaphorically, the gist of the human dilemma: In having evolved out of instinctual primacy, humans, nonetheless, weren't resistant to instinctual temptations because they were part animal and part rational beings capable of realizing the predatory savagery of their animal nature. Invoking God, producing commandments, insisting on rabbinical supervision are signs of an acknowledgment that humans could no longer rely on their instincts to guide them in a world quickly turning modern. Acquired ethics were necessary. And, too often, that's the part of the secular agenda that has been neglected. Nietzsche summed it up this way: "Egoism is the very essence of a noble soul." In a populated world, how much room is there for those kinds of noble souls? Imagine the volume of road rage that would exist if nearly everybody held that belief.
Arguably, God bequeathed humans first with animal instincts to survive a harsh world so that, gradually, they could develop a godlike intelligence capable of thinking beyond those instincts. That required the subordination of them for the sake of establishing a basic ethical sense of moderation so that humans could perpetuate. In the process, alpha creatures were necessary to advance the herd, and the killer instinct was necessary to defend and advance each tribe. Unfortunately, the Golden Rule, which is based on universal acceptance is in basic conflict with that basic inner human nature since it's not comprehensive enough nor as forceful enough as it should be to keep the frisky animals in their place so most of us most of the time can get along and go about our business. Believe me, I wish it were otherwise.
By the way, deluxe, that's a magnificent digest. Your aphoristic skills are quite enviable. For aphorisms, Eric Hoffer - yet another atheist, is one of my favorites. If you've got a moment, check him out.