***QUOTE***
Daniel Morgan said:
I agree...and I find it very hard to believe that many Christians really have the faith they profess in an afterlife, because of how desperately they avoid going there, in the way they dig their claws deep into medicine and scrabble madly away from death. We all know only life, and believe what we will about "eternity"...so far, the concept has no real meaning in the real universe -- actual infinities are not known.
********************************************
And then there are Christians who are so zealous for their faith that they consider anyone who questions their faith as a personal attack on them. They too are zealots for their faith. But why? Why are these religious people so zealous for their faith?
It's the fear of hell, I tell ya. And it's a horrible doctrine, especially when someone believes that babies go to hell and then still believes this after his wife miscarriages, which is a terrible painful parental experience all by itself that I sympathize with and wish on no one!
Fear of hell. That explains the zeal of the zealots in this world. It's a cradle to grave intimidation that causes otherwise intelligent and caring people to be stupid and fearful and zealous for their faith.
Tell me this, Christians, if it weren't for the fear of hell, how zealous would you be for your faith? How willing would you be to consider the questions we pose here at DC? How does the fear of hell itself affect how zealous you are to defend your faith?
posted by John W. Loftus @ 7/13/2006
At 11:01 AM, July 21, 2006, John W. Loftus said...
If Christians are the only people in the world who claim that God the Holy Spirit takes us "residence" inside them, and that he helps them behave, then why is there no real difference between the behavior of Christians and non-Christians? You'd think with such a claimed difference there would be a big difference in how they behave. But we don't see it.
***END-QUOTE***
1.First off, it’s noteworthy that Loftus and Morgan present contradictory diagnoses in their armchair analysis of what makes a Christian tick.
On the one hand, Danny thinks that Christian behavior can be explained by the fact that many or most Christians don’t really believe in the afterlife.
On the other hand, Loftus thinks that Christian behavior can be explain by the fact that many Christian are afraid of hell.
Of course, if you don’t believe in the afterlife, then you can’t very well believe in hell.
2.Christianity is not a death-cult. It’s a life-affirming faith, not a death-affirming faith.
3.Christians vary in their native temperament, spiritual maturity, and level of spiritual experience.
4.Throughout church history, many professing Christians have chosen to face martyrdom rather than recant their faith. And this remains the case today.
You wouldn’t exercise that option unless you believed in heaven.
5.Is there a bright line between the way in which all professing Christians behave, and all unbelievers behave? No.
Can we see no difference at all?
Well, to take a few illustrative examples, I happen to see a difference between Riefenstahl’s Triumph of the Will and Corrie ten Boom’s The Hiding Place.
http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/index.php?ModuleId=10006914&Type=normal+article
But that’s just me.
Likewise, consider the difference Christian revival made for life in a Japanese POW camp.
Cf. E. Gordon, To End All Wars (Zondervan 2002).
Conversely, there’s a consistency of another kind to the life and death of Madalyn-Murray O-Hair.
http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/misc/madalyn-murray-ohair/
Since what John and I think is different...therefore, God exists!
ReplyDeleteI would greatly appreciate it if you would separate my quote (the first paragraph) from the other quotes (second paragraph on).
Why do you never link to the original source? It always disrupts the context of the comment and the thread. Are you just not capable of CTRL-SHIFT-A?
I wonder if someone can explain this to me. Me being deluded and all ;)
ReplyDeleteAccording to atheism, all thought and belief can be explained in terms of biological and sociological evolution, including religious thought and belief. If this has somehow ensured the survival of the fittest why is Daniel and John, in particular, adamantly opposed to Christianity. What's the big deal?
I don't buy the 'because you say non-believers' are going to hell bit. So what?
My hunch is that there is a supernatural component that John et al are simply unwilling to accept, hence their zealous attacks against Christianity. Perhaps what drives them to debunk Christianity is their own fear of hell. If they can just disprove it then perhaps they can address that ever constant gnawing subconscious fear.
Morgan: "Since what John and I think is different...therefore, God exists!"
ReplyDeleteI think Morgan draws the wrong conclusion from Steve's post. Steve is not making a positive argument for the existence of God here. (He's done that elsewhere.) Rather he is calling into question Morgan and Loftus' (for lack of a better phrase at the moment) "mind-reading" into the Christian's motivations by heading to where the rubber meets the road: beliefs lived out.
After all Morgan and Loftus do not here make a logical, philosophical argument either against theism or for atheism. So Steve's not responding to them on a logical, philosophical level because that's not the level they themselves have addressed. They're attempting to psychoanalyze the Christian, so that's what this post is primarily concerned with.
Steve does not attempt to read into the Christian or atheist's thoughts in the manner Morgan and Loftus have done with the Christian in their above quotes. Instead he cites the life of the well-known Christian Corrie ten Boom and contrasts that to the life of the well-known atheist Madalyn Murray O'Hair. In other words Steve points the reader to the fruit or outcome of each of their lives. In this regard it might be argued Christians like ten Boom have added value to people's lives, even those who do not believe in the claims of Christianity and stand against it, whereas on the same grounds it might be argued atheists like O'Hair have not only failed to add value to people's lives but have in fact done the opposite.
Of course it would be silly to suggest that every single Christian's or every single atheist's life will play out in exactly the same fashion as these women's lives. The point is that there are enough in each camp whose lives do, at least in miniature if not in large, such that an outside observer or third party would be able to note similarities and parallels between the "model" and those who share her core beliefs. Each woman's life is not a perfect paradigm of how the Christian's or the atheist's life will always play out as philosophies, but rather each life is a specimen of the possibilities latent in each philosophy which oftentimes do play out.
By the same token Steve points out the film Triumph of the Will likewise stands in stark contrast to the film To End All Wars. The former is in large measure indebted to Nietzschean philosophy whereas the latter is in large measure indebted to a Christian one. Again the point is not that those who enjoy Triumph of the Will are automatically Nietzschean or evil, etc. nor that those who enjoy To End All Wars are automatically Christian or good, etc. -- as if these are black and white issues in the first place. But each film does espouse a certain worldview and that worldview does have certain implications.
Again, in my opinion Steve's post here is not designed to be a philosophical or theological argument for or against Christianity or atheism, per se. However it is one kind of evidence, the evidence of reaping what a person sows, which in turn might be derived from a person's philosophical system. It is the sort of evidence aimed at the level at which Morgan and Loftus have chosen to frame the discussion. So that even if God did not exist, one particular philosophy would still undergird and better allow for certain actions (or inactions) than the other would allow. The deluded Christian nevertheless imagines he has a moral standard external to himself by which he lives out his life accordingly. The atheist can still live a moral life, but upon what basis?
At least that's how I read Steve's post.
John has explained in two parts why he is running DC.
ReplyDeleteBelieve it or not, I don't think I can stop a single one of you from having faith. Whether you believed in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, or anything else I consider a fiction, it "neither picks my pocket, nor breaks my leg." What it does do, though, is incite some people to infuse religion into politics, which we have recently seen trending upwards further and further.
If we could have a secular government, I could give a rat's posterior less about what people believed and practiced in their homes and churches. As it is, America is trending away from secularism in every sphere, public and private. I am not a fearmonger. There is a good reason, a few, even, for me to fight for the values of secularism. I would fight for your right to believe whatever you wish. I also fight against your desire to push your beliefs, minimally or otherwise, onto me through subverted politicians and the influence of hundreds of millions of dollars from Evangelicals into our political system.
I fight against the desire of people to relegate reality into "situational science," to not just believe religious myths, but present them as if they were valid scientific theories.
I am not an intellectual, just a young guy who fears the direction of his government, the growing influence of religion on his life, and wants to do something about the erosion of the separation of church and state.
Oh, and I do learn a lot from you guys. Do I ever hope to be an atheologian? Um, no. I just like to learn. It's a phase, and I tend to go through them and burn out on topics. Right now, mine is arguing with smart theists.
"...he claimed he was high on intellectualism / I've never been there, but the brochure sure looked nice..." (Cheryl Crow, "Winding Road")
Patrick,
ReplyDeleteThe atheist can still live a moral life, but upon what basis?
This question you've asked seems to ruminate around presuppositionalist circles, but few of the philosophers I know seem impressed with it.
Is the question, "how do you determine what is moral?" Or is the question "once what is moral is determined, why do you do it?"
What I find is that morals are not difficult to determine in most situations. We have empathy. We understand pain, and we have an inbuilt aversion to it, and to causing it in others unnecessarily.
Steve says I "beg the question" by saying that our ethics must answer the question of "does this further my survival, and that of my kin, or weaken it?" Survival is not value-neutral. Each decision will serve to further it or endanger it.
Steve wants justification for why we should want to survive. Why we "ought" to. This sort of thing makes me roll my eyes. Especially when he admits that egoism is found in Xianity as well -- that Christians don't just obey God because they are interested in what God wants, but because of what may happen to them otherwise, etc. Rational self-interest is enough for me. How hard is it?
As hard as it is for you to accept, it's quite that simple for me. Perhaps my answer is not intellectually rigorous enough to satisfy you, but that's fine. I don't seem to need to go through a treatise to know why I won't and don't cheat on my wife, or hurt her. I don't seem to need a deep philosophical reason to spoil my Saint Bernards, and enjoy their kisses.
Humans are like many other social animals, stabilized by their societies, and they learn from behaviors what is "good" within the context of that society, or that relationship, depending on what they want from it, and what it will cost them.
I don't think any of you really see it as much more complex than that in your own life, you just add on..."plus, God commands it". I mean, if I could somehow, in some way convince you that Jesus never walked the earth...would you abandon your children? Would you stop loving them? Would you start beating your wife, and being unfaithful to her?
It's like you need to believe that people and their pain aren't enough, aren't valuable enough, to build a moral philosophy around. Why? It's quite enough for me. It's quite enough for many others. Arbitrary? No more so than your God's supposed decision that "shrimp is an abomination" and so are rabbits, and that it's "okay" to kill the infants of enemies (1 Sam 15:3, Num 31:17).
Sorry, but your supposed "base" is a tenuous one -- what you believe that God spoke to people, who wrote it down, who copied it untold times and revised it untold more...
My "base" is what I know and experience. The tears of children invoke a biological sympathy from me. It isn't something I have to intellectually justify. Those persons with whom empathy finds no root we call "sociopaths" and "psychopaths", and we tend to treat them according to a different legal standard than normal persons.
Secular humanism, the values of the Enlightenment, teachings of philosophy, all of these come together to form a coherent and cogent "basis" for ethics.
We have learned from history, from social experiment, we have seen what works and what doesn't. Democracy works. Freedom and civil liberties are necessary. The infusion of religion into politics fails. I can go on and on. Ethics aren't political philosophy, but our politics and civil law depend on the same sort of secular justification that you can read in Plato or Aristotle. Is it really so hard as you theists want to make it?
This canard is wearing thin. Other people, and their pain, are the basis for my ethics. I can't speak for all atheists. You can't speak for all Christians, some of whom consider it "moral" to still stone gays and incorrigible children. Thankfully, at the moment, secular humanism still serves as a basis for American law, and not theonomy...at least, for now.
Daniel,
ReplyDeleteSo secularism (atheism) has no agenda, politically that is? Absolute secularism promotes absolute tolerance and all that.
...Sorry if I disagree.
Though I would agree that Theocratic laws do not a Christian make.
Hi Daniel,
ReplyDeleteYou wrote:
"I would fight for your right to believe whatever you wish. I also fight against your desire to push your beliefs, minimally or otherwise, onto me through subverted politicians and the influence of hundreds of millions of dollars from Evangelicals into our political system."
Just a few quick points on your comments here and above (in no particular order):
1. The adjectives you've used to describe "Evangelicals" involved in the American political process, at least in my experience and understanding, seem unfair labels. For instance what do you mean to imply by "subverted" politicians? What if the politican is Christian and represents a majority Christian constituency -- should he then be considered "subverted" (e.g. J.C. Watts, before he decided to retire from politics)?
2. Don't both parts walk hand-in-hand with one another, at least some of the time? I mean if I'm to understand what you're implying here, I don't see why the latter sentence should necessarily be a problem assuming the former one. In the case of political lobbying, one's right to believe whatever he wants indeed forms a basis for said lobbying.
3. Your comments cut both ways: the Christian could very well say the same of the secularist humanist, or the homosexual lobbyist, or the abortionist, or pretty much any other officially registered group "pushing his agenda onto us" via certain avenues or means.
4. Of course, some means are, shall we say, less savory than others. Pouring millions of dollars into an issue or seeking to persuade undecided voters are legitimate means while skewing numbers or statistics to achieve desired ends or bribing corrupt politicians are not.
5. However, these practices arguably occur among all sorts of groups -- from so-called "Christian" ones to, yes, atheists, secular humanists, etc., and everything in-between, so to speak. Hence we should not necessarily confuse a group's said agenda, per se, since it could be a worthwhile agenda, with the failings of individuals within the group or who support the agenda. For all I know (and admittedly I don't know much on the issue, and so can't speak from an informed opinion; I only use it as an example) to pass a bill restricting immigration might be a good thing for certain states or even our nation. But if some members of a group which supports such an issue are corrupt or if some politicians who favor restricting immigration are corrupt, does this then negate the issue? Not necessarily.
6. Any registered group is allowed to lobby for its agenda. Indeed this is how our political system functions. If we allow even the KKK to have some sort of a voice in our system, then I don't see what's wrong with a group of Christians forming a particular group in order to lobby for certain things near and dear to their hearts -- again, so long as they do so legitimately and legally and all that.
7. Perhaps speaking from my own theology as a Reformed Baptist, at least to the extent I understand it, I don't believe it is the primary business or affair of a local church to involve themselves in politics. The distinction is that I would by no means advocate the church advocating an issue, certainly not by placing lobbyists on their payroll let alone forming a lobbying group -- but that said I don't a problem for individual church members participating in such a group or even working as lobbyists.
8. From your perspective as a scientist and secular humanist, presumably you'd consider it a worthwhile goal to advance stem cell research. (Please correct me if I'm wrong on this point.) And although I'm not a scientist, I can at least point out that from the perspective of a scientist who likewise happens to be an evangelical Christian, presumably this would not be a worthwhile goal. The difference, then, again as I understand it, is not necessarily the science, but rather the worldview or philosophy informing the science. So to me your comments seem less about whether it is legitimate for the Christian or atheist or whomever else or whatever other group to use our political process to achieve certain desired results (which at this point I don't see a problem with) and more of an issue of whether you happen to agree with the opposing worldview or philosophy.
9. Seen from the opponent's point of view, standing in his shoes, the battle might sometimes seem unfair or illegitimate, or worse, illegal and immoral. But is it? I suppose it depends on which group we're speaking about. One thing is for sure though: personally speaking, I would not make a blanket statement and seek to paint all atheists and secular humanists as immoral baby-killers bent on corrupting our society with their godless values. (And hopefully that's not what you're seeking to do with Christian groups.) First, it's not necessarily true, and second, it doesn't really help anything anyway, in my opinion.
10. But I realize some would have no problem using such labels. I'm not merely speaking only of "Christian" groups. Conservatives and liberals, Republicans and Democrats, libertarians and free-thinkers, etc. might all be guilty here. And by our political system and laws, it might in fact be perfectly legal to do this, but is it moral? I don't believe it is, but that's another topic for another time.
11. Not all Christians or groups agree with one another on all topics. E.g. many Christians would not make a case for theonomy.
12. Neither would all Christian worldviews place the same emphasis on topics they do agree with. E.g. among those that do favor theonomy, not all would place as high a priority on it or stress it as much as other issues.
13. And even if a particular member, or even if the majority of the members, of a Christian group holds to a certain worldview, the group qua group does not necessarily function to promote the worldview alongside whatever agenda or issue they are lobbying.
14. Therefore Christian political groups are no more part and parcel of some massive, homogenous "right-wing Christian conspiracy" than the Founding Fathers were all Freemasons secretly involved in a vast shadowy alliance to manipulate international affairs (as Nicholas Cage seemed to prove in National Treasure).
That's all I have for now. Better get to bed.
A few more thoughts:
ReplyDelete1. Not every Christian or Christian group wants America to be a Christian nation anymore than he wants America to be a Buddhist or Muslim nation. Or even a Roman Catholic nation.
2. In fact, at least as I understand it, it would be unconstitutional for the government to establish and/or financially support a national religion because of the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment.
3. That said this does not necessarily seem to forbid the federal government from supporting a religion like Christianity in general. After all the Senate has its own chaplain. So do the various branches of the military. Is this unconstitutional? Is it unconstitutional for a chaplain to lead the Senate or troops in prayer? Where do we draw the line?
4. Although the federal government is not permitted to establish a national religion, are individual states permitted to establish a state religion or local governments to establish a municipal religion?
5. Jefferson's "wall of separation between church and state" may be a helpful and fair metaphor, but is it necessarily the same as the Establishment Clause itself?
6. Many secularists not only fight to uphold the separation of church and state, which is fine, but then they also fight to establish a completely secular state, devoid of any and all religious influences. This seems to me to be a double standard and thus smacks of the same sort of extremism that they accuse various religious groups of.
7. Might atheism, or at least some brands of atheism, be considered a religion?
(Sorry, I couldn't sleep.)
ReplyDeletewarrenl,
ReplyDeleteI never said that secular humanism does not have certain values, and advocate them strongly. Here they are. Specifically, and this is relevant with respect to foreign policy, humanists don't rely on a supernatural ontology, and believe that humans must solve man-made problems, because if we don't, they won't get solved.
I am reminded of some Evangelicals with whom I've been conversing lately, who have assured me that peace talks in the Middle East are futile, because the Bible says so. That sort of attitude is appalling. So is an attitude that Suzie has cancer, and we'll pray for her to get better, and tell her that going to the doctor is showing a weakness of faith. I consider those two things on similar philosophical footing.
I can go into other areas in which there is a clear disparity between certain secular and religious values, but must I? So far as I know, secularism promotes a very simple thing: religiously-neutral government and government agencies. Not schools that teach "there is no God," but simply what the best conclusions are (currently) of modern science. Parents are free to teach their kids at home, "science is bunk, Genesis is da' bomb!"
Another area in which there is conflict is the idea of gay marriage and abortion -- both of which are considered civil liberties by most humanists. Consider for a moment that giving someone the right to choose what to do with their own body, whether or not they will subject themselves to a painless early-term abortion or a prolonged agony of childbirth, is not the your own business, and affects your life in no way. The same is true with gay marriage.
You don't like those two rights? Then don't exercise them. You think they're immoral? Don't have an abortion, and don't marry someone of the same sex. How does it infringe on your rights, as laid out in the constitution for citizens of this country, for me to do either? Oh, I forgot, the "rights" of the "blastocyst-Americans" trump the rights of the mother to choose.
Now, let's consider the "flip side" of the coin: religious values in the schools and elsewhere.
If our children are taught "evolution is bunk, Genesis is da' bomb!" by governmental agencies (schools), this is a clear violation of the 1st Amendment, via the "Lemon Test", where a particular religious view is promoted and established via government. I have the right to be protected from this, just as you have the right to exercise your religion freely (YOU have that right, not the government--private citizens), via the 1st Amendment.
I think it clear that whatever "gay agenda" you fear, the worst thing in your own head is the idea that you having to share the right to marry whomever you wish with gay persons will somehow lead to "gayness" spreading like an infectious disease. There have always been a minority of gay people, and there will always be. Do we give them equal access to the laws of our country, or not? Call it a "gay agenda" if you wish.
We've gone over abortion until I'm a bit sick of it, but two logical arguments have been presented: 1) a woman's body is her own property, and the fetus is in and a part of her body; 2) the right to privacy and the sovereignty over our bodies prevents government entanglement into medical procedures on ourselves (if we're consenting adults).
That said, I disagree entirely with tax-dollar-funded abortions, and I agree that abortion procedures should require the same level of requisite parental consent as any other medical procedure. Therefore, I am not an "extremist" on the issue.
Another issue where the secular and religious clash is sex education and practices -- esp the way the Catholics have staunchly opposed using contraceptives. How much of the AIDS in Africa lies at the feet of the pope's door? I also think it terribly irresponsible to teach kids against using birth control, pushing this absurd "abstinence only" crap. (studies have proven it is crap) In the end, I can't "make" your kids use birth control, but I can tell them about it, and how to use it, and encourage them that if they decide to have sex, they must use safety measures. Is that infringing on their rights? Yours?
There are a few areas where secularists have an "agenda" that would dishearten you, I suppose, but these are the most obvious to me.
Patrick,
ReplyDeleteYour first set of points:
1) The stem cell veto is a clear example of what I refer to -- a politician acting against the majority of Americans, and with no logical basis whatsoever, in trashing viable embryos rather than funding the use of them in research.
2) The problem isn't the "right to believe", but the 1st Amendment. As it is, we have "special" status for churches and church lobbies, such as "Moral Majority" and the "Christian Coalition", which get by tax-free, and have HUGE audiences by virtue of the pulpits, and these are used as political instruments. Very wrong. I say yank their tax-exempt status, and they'll shut up about politics. Or, let them talk about it, after they are no longer "protected".
3) I addressed this above in my comment to warrenl: how does my right to an abortion, or my right to a gay marriage, make you have one? Conversely, my right to life-saving research is stymied by the perfidy of our executive to religious principles over the good of the people.
4) Ever read about Ralph Reed and Enron? I suggest you do.
5) Whereas all groups may have influence, I think the Religious Right has more than any other at the moment, and is the only group expressly forbidden by our Constitution from infusing itself in policies and legislation. Big difference there.
6) Of course they can and should lobby...so long as their legislative activities don't cross the 1st Amendment line, or deprive other persons of rights.
7) Doing it privately, outside of the church building, is of course a freedom I too enjoy. Using the building of the church, and the assembly of its people, as I have personally witnessed dozens of times, to push a political agenda, is a gross violation of the IRS codes for tax-exempt status. It's quite dishonest.
8) If your scientist is a cell biologist, I'd love to converse with him. Adult stem cells have been the ONLY area of federally-funded research, which is the only sort of grant monies available to the powerhouse of research -- the university. So far, they have developed some uses and techniques, from these very limited and easily-contaminated lines. Mouse proteins were found to contaminate the cells in media after nearly all of the 80 or so lines had been grown with them. Karl Rove couldn't find a single, one, scientist to support his assertion that, "adult stem cell research shows far more promise..." The reason is simple: it doesn't. It's a lie. Find me one cell biologist who agrees with Rove. You're exactly wrong about your scientist's views -- having uncontaminated, fresh totipotent cell lines is a vital part of the research process.
9) I'm not sure what "values" humanists corrupt, when the "values" are -- equal rights for all (gay marriage) and the right to privacy over one's body and medical decisions (abortion). Obviously, these do not usurp your rights in any way, shape, or form, but you would strip them from others if you could. You would use the government to prevent persons from "acting immorally" (via your Biblical standard), although there is virtually no civil or secular basis for the charge.
10) I'm socially liberal and fiscally conservative. I'm a man without a party. Thus, I have no label.
11) True, but a very vocal and well-funded group of extremists has become increasingly influential in their effects on legislation and science education (and scientific suppression -- see the NASA debacle).
12) As I said, I don't claim this is a #1 priority of all Christians, but it is a high priority of some, whose propaganda and power are fearful.
13) And that's why I didn't say we should shut down churches, just prevent them from being used as political launching pads.
14) Conspiracy? I read the newspapers, sir, and this group is quite honest and overt about its agenda.
Second set:
1) What people want (majority) is, thankfully, restricted by the Constitutional rights afforded to all, equally. I don't want an "atheist nation", I just don't want one "under God" either -- rolling back to "e pluribus unum" would suit me just fine. How about you? Some Christians' faith is apparently so weak they need the validation of their government for it. How about taking the motto off the currency as well, since that didn't occur until the Civil War? How about taking it out of the pledge, as well, since that didn't occur until the Cold War? How does that make you feel? To be religiously-neutral, as the country was founded?
2) Not just a "national religion", although that is of course what the theocrats preach. The government cannot support any establishment of religion, which means any legislation which establishes a religion or a religious doctrine. The Supreme Court has come to carefully define this in the "Lemon Test" -- if something furthers no legitimate secular purpose, or furthers or prohibits a religion or religious cause, or "excessively entangle[s]" the government with religion or a religious cause...then it violates the 1st Amendment. It's pretty simple.
3) As a matter of fact, it's interesting you bring this up. There are some really good resources out there that show the difficulty inherent in this issue. Think for a moment that these same Founders saw no problem with slavery, although they enacted a government and Bill of Rights which sought to protect all peoples. They saw no reason to give women a vote. They saw many things very differently, even though they used the same Constitutional guidelines that we are now discussing, still today. In the only case where the issue of a chaplain came before the Supreme Court, Marsh v Chambers, you really ought to read the majority and dissenting opinions of the Court. The majority upheld the Constitutionality of a paid chaplain in the states. The issue of federal chaplains have not come before the Court.
I would like to quote the latter opinion, in part:
Finally, and most importantly, the argument tendered by the Court is misguided because the Constitution is not a static document whose meaning on every detail is fixed for all time by the life experience of the Framers. We have recognized in a wide variety of constitutional contexts that the practices that were in place at the time any particular guarantee was enacted into the Constitution do not necessarily fix forever the meaning of that guarantee. To be truly faithful to the Framers, "our use of
the history of their time must limit itself to broad purposes, not specific practices." Our primary task must be to translate "the majestic generalities of the Bill of Rights, conceived as part of the pattern of liberal government in the eighteenth century, into concrete restraints on officials dealing with the problems of the twentieth century . . . ."
I have not read it put so well elsewhere. We have to consider the context within which they acted, and especially those areas in which equal rights were clearly skewed. In the technical sense, the First Congress authorized the chaplain three days BEFORE the First Amendment was ratified in its final form. In that sense, the practice was "grandfathered in" regardless of its Constitutionality. Anyway, these questions are of depth and complexity. Such traditions as the Bible swearing are purely historical and not documented within the Constitution, and so is "God save this court" and the president's oath "so help me God". These things don't terribly bother me, but tax dollars supporting the military chaplains does. They do now employ more than one religious variety of chaplain, but it is still a clear violation of the First Amendment in the governmental support not just of a generalized prayer before the House and Senate, but of state-supported Christian and Muslim Evangelism.
Where do we draw the line? Where the state puts money into something that furthers a religious view or spreads its doctrines. That's what I'd say.
4) No, because of the 14th Amendment (section 1).
5) Depends on which law scholar you ask, I suppose. The views of individuals about the laws are obviously distinct from the laws themselves. The most important question to ask is, "what is the most recent Supreme Court ruling outlining the application of the 1st Amendment to mundane spheres of life?" And the answer to that is the Lemon Test. It has been used to decide cases as recently as last year with the 10 Commandments cases in Kentucky and Texas. The Court's reasoning on these cases was a little odd -- they found that Texas' monument advanced a secular/historical purpose, while KY's didn't -- mainly due to the KY monument standing alone with no "balancing" religious or historical accessories.
I think that causes like this where taxpayers waste millions of dollars, and throw fits over such things, are silly. The US Law is not the Decalogue. (Which version? The one with not boiling a kid in its mother's milk is my favorite) Most people understand this. Most people understand that we have a secular basis for law based on the secular Constitution, not the Bible. The authority of the Constitution is "we the people", not "the Creator". Does the Constitution (or our civil law) say, "there is no Creator?" Of course not.
Why do these people desperately need the government to sponsor their religious doctrines and views? Is their faith so weak? As if there aren't a MILLION churches in America and a thousand private events where these views are pounded into the collective culture...
Patrick,
ReplyDeleteSorry I missed your second set, points six and seven:
6) A religiously-neutral state is by definition NON-extremist. It is neutral. How is that "extreme"? Why must the state support some notion of a deity or some religion in order to be "moderate"? Obviously, some religion would consider it the wrong God, or that the state worshipped it the wrong way, etc...so no one can ever be happy.
7) Some atheists attempt to convert theists into atheists through rational discourse and argument. Trying to make people lose their religion is hardly a deity, or something one worships. It really depends on your definition of religion -- if the functionalist definition prevailed (whatever you spend the most of your time and energy doing), then my religion is college football in the fall and eating at other times and playing racquetball at others. Almost all definitions of religion depend on belief in the supernatural, and so by default, atheism is to the supernatural what dualism is to physicalism.
I think what you really mean here is that some atheists push an agenda that would infringe on the rights of others. Some do. Some want all churches closed or whatever. I guess in that sense, they are on a "crusade", even if not a religious one.
As you pointed out, some brands of Christianity can be rightly labeled "theonomists" but that doesn't indicate all Christians ought to be prevented from influencing the government.
Daniel,
ReplyDeleteI never said that secular humanism does not have certain values, and advocate them strongly. Here they are. Specifically, and this is relevant with respect to foreign policy, humanists don't rely on a supernatural ontology, and believe that humans must solve man-made problems, because if we don't, they won't get solved.
Can you cite one example where a predominantly secular society solved their man-made problems to any measurable extent and still remained an open tolerant society that promoted freethinking?
I am reminded of some Evangelicals with whom I've been conversing lately, who have assured me that peace talks in the Middle East are futile, because the Bible says so. That sort of attitude is appalling.
I note you said some. What are the others saying? I am sure that some Evangelicals think that based on their eschatology, but not all. I am sure not even most. We are commanded to pray for and promote peace. I have read many ‘Evangelical’ blogs calling into question this constant need for some to always tie current events with end time prophecy in order to affect attitudinal changes.
So is an attitude that Suzie has cancer, and we'll pray for her to get better, and tell her that going to the doctor is showing a weakness of faith. I consider those two things on similar philosophical footing.
This is such a gross generalization. In fact, apart from a six month period I spent in a ‘Word of Faith’ church I have never come across this attitude within Evangelical circles.
I can go into other areas in which there is a clear disparity between certain secular and religious values, but must I? So far as I know, secularism promotes a very simple thing: religiously-neutral government and government agencies. Not schools that teach "there is no God," but simply what the best conclusions are (currently) of modern science. Parents are free to teach their kids at home, "science is bunk, Genesis is da' bomb!"
You’re right, secular education won’t teach “there is no God”, it’ll teach “there is no God and you are an absolute idiot for believing there is one.” Secular education will not tolerate any opposing views to the “best conclusions (currently) of modern science” and will hold adamantly, even unthinkingly to all views that deny the supernatural no matter where the evidence leads. And since when are Christians anti-science. Most of my Christian friends are in scientific fields. I have a Bachelors degree in Chemistry.
Another area in which there is conflict is the idea of gay marriage and abortion -- both of which are considered civil liberties by most humanists. Consider for a moment that giving someone the right to choose what to do with their own body, whether or not they will subject themselves to a painless early-term abortion or a prolonged agony of childbirth, is not the your own business, and affects your life in no way. The same is true with gay marriage.
You don't like those two rights? Then don't exercise them. You think they're immoral? Don't have an abortion, and don't marry someone of the same sex. How does it infringe on your rights, as laid out in the constitution for citizens of this country, for me to do either? Oh, I forgot, the "rights" of the "blastocyst-Americans" trump the rights of the mother to choose.
To deal with abortion, humanists reclassify fetuses as a non-human mass of tissue. It’s easy to deny the scientific evidence of human life then isn’t it.? I mean when it’s not convenient. What I don’t get is with the many contraception choices available why it still so difficult to NOT fall pregnant. People’s lack self control? It takes too much time to put one on?
And since Christianity hardly dominates public education the majority of teenagers in western societies have been exposed to sex education. Or do you disagree? Perhaps if abortion was outlawed people will then take responsibility for their actions and take the necessary precautions to begin with.
Danny does it help if you use language the way that you do; “a painless early-term abortion” vs. “a prolonged agony of childbirth”. Tell me when you use terms like “painless” are you referring to physically only, or does that include emotionally, mentally and psychologically as well? Not all early abortions are physically painless either. I watched my wife give birth twice. She had an epidural both times. I don’t remember any “prolonged agony”. She slept for about eight hours during both.
And let’s not forget that the abortion business is big business too. Do you really believe that someone entering a Planned Parenthood office is provided with all the information, all the options?
Also many humanists are proponents of partial-birth abortions and even post birth terminations. Danny, even though you are not an extremist, where will it end?
Now, let's consider the "flip side" of the coin: religious values in the schools and elsewhere.
If our children are taught "evolution is bunk, Genesis is da' bomb!" by governmental agencies (schools), this is a clear violation of the 1st Amendment, via the "Lemon Test", where a particular religious view is promoted and established via government. I have the right to be protected from this, just as you have the right to exercise your religion freely (YOU have that right, not the government--private citizens), via the 1st Amendment.
Since when are Evangelicals saying that science, even evolution, shouldn’t be taught. In fact teach evolution, but teach it honestly. Separate fact from theory or hypothesis. The problem is that evolution is taught as absolute fact. Religious adherence to evolution is demanded. Evangelicals, if anything, want ID to be given a fair shot, to be taught in a way that also separates fact from theory and hypothesis. If both evolution and ID are taught in this way wouldn’t this result in critical thinking, freethinking? Or is secular education, the current "monopoly", afraid?
I think it clear that whatever "gay agenda" you fear, the worst thing in your own head is the idea that you having to share the right to marry whomever you wish with gay persons will somehow lead to "gayness" spreading like an infectious disease. There have always been a minority of gay people, and there will always be. Do we give them equal access to the laws of our country, or not? Call it a "gay agenda" if you wish.
Actually it may surprise you that I don’t want to stop gay people from getting married. Although I don’t believe homosexuality is right biblically I am not homophobic. I have many gay friends. And I am aware that the bible views sins like greed, malice and gossip in the same way. I am guilty of those and therefore have no right to condemn gays. Neither do I believe that Theocratic laws will stop people from having homosexual relationships. Laws do not ‘convert’ people.
But I have to ask myself the question where it will end. Will it stop at two people in a monogamous marriage, or can we look forward to legal polyamorous unions. What impact will that have on medical insurance? Even though a homosexual marriage has no direct impact on me personally, the ‘evolution’ of the marriage laws may.
Another issue where the secular and religious clash is sex education and practices -- esp the way the Catholics have staunchly opposed using contraceptives. How much of the AIDS in Africa lies at the feet of the pope's door? I also think it terribly irresponsible to teach kids against using birth control, pushing this absurd "abstinence only" crap. (studies have proven it is crap) In the end, I can't "make" your kids use birth control, but I can tell them about it, and how to use it, and encourage them that if they decide to have sex, they must use safety measures. Is that infringing on their rights? Yours?
Danny this is such a sort sighted view for many reasons.
There is a difference between the Catholic Church and many Evangelical groups. Sure we teach premarital abstinence but my ‘denomination’ has never spoken out against using contraceptives, either for those in premarital relationships who 'cannot help themselves' or marital relationships.
In answering your question, “how much of the AIDs in Africa lies at the feet of the pope’s door?” I’d venture not half as much as you are implying. Firstly Africa is not as Catholic as you may think. Besides most Africans are syncretic when it comes to “Christianity” often blending certain concepts with ancestral worship and animism. Secondly Sangomas (witch doctors) have long advocated that the cure for HIV/AIDs is to sleep with a virgin resulting in it’s spread as well as increase in child rape. Thirdly in many areas the social norms include groups of men traveling from village to village and sleeping with the woman in those villages. And lastly many attempts to ‘educate the locals’ about contraception have failed, because of the lack of understanding the educators had of their audience. (Have I got some stories for you)
And by the way, you won’t have to teach my children about birth control. I’ll be doing that myself.
Interesting dialogue but surely this is all ‘mind-games’ in light of the only rule that has any long lasting consequence within your worldview. The survival of the fittest?
Danniel,
ReplyDeleteOne final thought... (which I don't believe is in any way proof for the existence of God, nor a reason why you should abandon atheism and reconvert to Christianity.)
If Christianity is a fairy tale, when I die I'll never know. So what does it matter if I live a deluded life. My life has meaning and I intend to live life to the fullest within the dictates of being a disciple of Christ. And so far it's been a great ride.
I wouldn't be a wrench in the evolutionary works, because survival of the fittest will occur regardless of what I believe.
If I am right, well then I will know.
If you are right you will never know. At death there will be no final realization of the validity of your beliefs. In that respect we would be in the same boat. We would have both passed on our genes, tried to have led meaningful lives, lived according to some moral code, etc. But will cease to exist.
You will only know if you are wrong...
warrenl,
ReplyDeleteA common overlooked problem with "Pascal's Wager", which is basically what you presented with this last comment, is that you could be wrong about Christianity in more ways than just "atheists were right". Muslims could be right. Buddhists could be right. Hindus, Krishnas, Pagans, Witches, etc., etc., etc., could all be right. In that sense, you have no "safety net" by choosing Xianity.
You could be wrong, and wake up and know it too. You could be in big trouble for denying the Prophet Mohamed, or the Hindu gods, etc.
In the end, we all have to make the best judgment we can with the best thinking we have. And in the end, if we do this, and we're wrong (any of us), then I guess we'll have to hope that whatever deity may exist is at least as reasonable and as merciful as we can be.
But there is no such thing as certainty. Not for you. Not for me. Not for any of us. Death is a mystery to us all.
I'm enjoying your dialogue, but I am probably not going to be spending a lot more time on this blog, as I will be writing some at my own spot and elsewhere.
Daniel,
ReplyDeleteAgreed, no-one has 100% certainty. I do not. There are inconsistencies in all worldviews. I am willing to admit that there are things in Christianity I have to accept on faith. And yet Christianity provides me with a framework that is more consistent than anything else I've found. And if it is a fairy tale, it's a grand one. Yes you think it is evil, however, I have yet to see consistent 'atheistic' argumentation as to why.
As far as I can tell there has never been a knockout blow from either theism or atheism. In the world of epistomolgy there are no clear winners. In the end all worldviews require an element of faith. And I could be wrong, but ultimately yours does to and in the end within yours it doesn't really matter.
is that you could be wrong about Christianity in more ways than just "atheists were right". Muslims could be right. Buddhists could be right. Hindus, Krishnas, Pagans, Witches, etc., etc., etc., could all be right. In that sense, you have no "safety net" by choosing Xianity.
True, though I am not a Christian because I view it as a safety net, a good "get out of hell insurance policy". I know for many it is and I know enough ex-Christians who had that as the basis of their faith and have long since deserted the faith. Christianity frames my worldview, my identity, my relationships, my history and my destiny. I believe I have been "saved", despite of who I am, to live life to the full. Sure our definitions of what that means differ but since we have no objective external framework to work from, mine is as good as yours.
I am no isolationist either and I deeply desire to live in peace with my neighbors though I know all to well that life will always be filled with tension.
From a purely "safety net" view, as far as I know it is Christianity(if you perefer reformed Christianity) that is the only 'faith' that presents an eternal destiny in either heaven or hell. Perhaps that is why it is attacked as much as it is.
- Atheism - oblivion. cessation of consciousness.
- Islam - punishment then annihilation
- Buddists, Hinduism etc. - reincarnation until I get it right and then individual oblivion.
- Pagans, wiccans - Perhaps some other state, no hell.
So really I don't have anything to lose. In light of an eternal heaven, I have everything to gain.
And if I am wrong and there is no supernatural deity then I would have a great life anyway. I wouldn't know any better either way.
Thanks for the dialogue. I'll be sure to check out your blog.
Patrick, Warrenl, et al,
ReplyDeleteI have a thread up about the existential dilemma and would love to dialogue with you further on it there.