« Previous entries · Next entries »
July 1, 2007
Posted at 12:00 am by Richard and tagged bible, books, catholosim, evangelism, marriage, morality, religion, sex, slavery, sociology. Popularity: 15% [?]
It seems a common claim that morality is impossible without religion. While I might agree that in some cases religion (or, more specifically, the fear of eternal damnation) can be a pretty good motivator, I think that a morality that doesn’t rely on religion is not just possible, but it’s a lot more desirable. Last time, I outlined a somewhat extreme view of what some people think of morality without religion. In this post, I’d like to explain how I feel Christian morality (and religion-based morality in general) can be flawed and potentially abused. Next time, I’ll outline some of my ideas about morality.
Immoral Religion
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg
As Steven Weinberg suggests, some people use religion to justify their immorality. I remember a joke I was told a few years ago (by a Lawyer, I think - who knew they had a sense of humour?), that talked about there being two types of Catholics - those who felt so restricted by their religion, that they had very dull lives, and those who live life to the full (”immorality” and all), and then simply ask forgiveness. Religion, I suppose, can be quite liberating for one’s morality if one can always rely on the forgiveness of sins.
According to one book (at least, the review of it that I read) evangelical Christian teenagers, although likely to think not having sex before marriage is the right thing to do, are actually more likely than many other Christians to commit this “sinful” act.
80 percent think sex should be saved for marriage. But thinking is not the same as doing. Evangelical teens are actually more likely to have lost their virginity than either mainline Protestants or Catholics.
Sure, maybe you could argue that these teenagers “aren’t true Christians”, otherwise they wouldn’t be having sex before marriage. But then, that wouldn’t stop people using the bible to justify slavery (as long as the slaves are from neighbouring nations), and killing people who work on the Sabbath. Not to mention all the historical atrocities committed in the name of religion.
I’m definitely not claiming that religious people are necessarily immoral, but I think I’ve shown that it’s certainly possible to “live by the rules” of religion, and act completely immorally (honestly, does anyone still think slavery is moral?). There’s people out there clearly saying that religion is not always a force for good, and they make some pretty good points!
Why, then, do people persist in claiming that religion is the only way to live a moral life?
Permalink
Share This
June 27, 2007
Posted at 10:48 am by del.icio.us and tagged bible, charity, creationism, feminism, fsm, god, history, humour, intelligentdesign, jail, Links, map, moses, paranoia, parishilton, religion, science, uk. Popularity: 30% [?]
Here are some of the sites I’ve been looking at recently, that I wanted to share:
Permalink
Share This
June 24, 2007
Posted at 11:56 pm by Richard and tagged 10commandments, antitheism, atheism, bible, christianity, interpretation, morality, religion, richard-dawkins, usa. Popularity: 16% [?]
It seems a common claim that morality is impossible without religion. While I might agree that in some cases religion (or, more specifically, the fear of eternal damnation) can be a pretty good motivator, I think that a morality that doesn’t rely on religion is not just possible, but it’s a lot more desirable. Over the next few weeks, I’ll be outlining what some people think of morality without religion, why religion-based morality is potentially suspect, and my ideas on morality.
God Hating Atheists
Some have claimed that atheism is responsible for immoral acts, and that lack of Christian morality (ignoring the possibility of other types of morality) in schools is responsible for school shootings. Both these articles describe various violent acts and crimes committed by young USAians, and then jump right into blaming Atheists and Darwinists (perhaps I’m missing a step in the argument, but I can’t see it - although “How to build a bomb in the public school system” does have one piece of evidence - the words “Natural Selection” on one shooter’s T-shirt):
Now do you realize who the people are who are responsible for children having gotten so violent? The answer is ATHEISTS and other non-beleivers [sic.] in the true God. So you may ask how can this be? The reason why they are responsible is because they hate God and teach their children against God (which is the highest form of child abuse). For example: Atheists hate the TEN COMMANDMENTS because God is their Author.
Aside from the obvious problem that Atheists, by definition, are unable to hate God (because as far as they’re concerned God doesn’t even exist) I see no logical reason why someone couldn’t hate the Christian God, but still “love” the 10 commandments. Jews and Muslims still have the 10 commandments, but in this writers mind, I’m sure Jews and Muslims would classify as “non-believers in the true God” (even though, technically, all three religions have the same roots, and thus the same God). There’s also plenty of people who live arguably moral lives while breaking at least the first few commandments. Depending on your interpretation, it’s also possible that all Christians break the 1st commandment, if you read “thou shalt have no other Gods before me” as endorsing strict monotheism, given that Christianity (arguably) invokes three Gods - I think Jews and Muslims are safe, though. Then, of course, there’s those of us who choose not to kill, steal or commit adultery, and still manage to respect our parents every so often - I don’t need to love (or even believe in) the Christian God for that.
There may be many religion-hating Atheists (or, anti-theists - of which Richard Dawkins comes to mind - while I’ve seen him in documentaries, I have yet to actually read his work, though, so I could be wrong), but a God-hating Atheist is an oxymoron. I certainly don’t think taking issue with religion necessarily makes you amoral, just like I don’t think that following a religion (whatever it may be) necessarily makes you moral.
One final thought - how many “immoral” people do you think are out there in this world? 5%? 20%? 50%? Well, if you subscribe to the theory that without Christianity, you’re necessarily immoral, you are immediately saying that 67% are incapable of living moral lives - not including immoral “Christians”, of course. Is there really a God who would condemn the majority of the world’s population simply because they were raised in a religion other than Christianity?
(To Be Continued… - Morality Part 2 will be posted next Sunday)
Permalink
Share This
June 23, 2007
Posted at 12:23 am by Richard and tagged conflict, dr-phil, freedom, hijab, philosophy, politics, religion, richard-dawkins, science, stupidity, university. Popularity: 14% [?]
Dawkins (we all know him, right?) is suggesting that, while we all are aware of the threat to science by creationists and religious fundamentalists, there are other threats which must also be taken seriously.
“I think we face an equal but much more sinister challenge from the left, in the shape of cultural relativism - the view that scientific truth is only one kind of truth and it is not to be especially privileged.”
Sure, Dawkins has a point. While I certainly would disagree with his implied (correct me if I’m wrong) view that scientific truth is the only legitimate form of truth, suggesting that scientific truth should not be privileged above that of, say, religion or even philosophy would certainly be a mistake. Religious “truth” seems almost an oxymoron, but philosophical truth does have some merit. Perhaps we could also talk about “personal” truth (gotta love Dr. Phil). Of course, if science and philosophy (or science and my “personal truth”) were to ever disagree, I’d side with science - no question.
That said, I found the link to Dawkins’ quote from Atheist Revolution, who seems to take Dawkins’ argument to some strange extreme. I started reading:
For a more current example of Dawkins’ concerns, we turn to Philadelphia where police officer Kimberlie Webb sued her department for their refusal to allow her to wear a hijab while on duty…
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission actually concluded that the police department had violated Webb’s rights by prohibiting her from wearing Muslim garb while on duty.
Fortunately, federal judge Bartle had more sense
Now, the judge’s reasons might have some validity - he suggests that (and this is me paraphrasing) by disallowing “religious symbols and attire” puts officers in a better position to deal with varying cultures/religions of people who they have to interact with.
But, I digress. My issue is not with the judge’s decision, as I clearly don’t know enough about the facts to disagree with him. I do, however, take issue with the comments made on Atheist Revolution:
Why must freedom to practice one’s religion become freedom to practice one’s religion in public?
Isn’t that exactly the point of the legal right to practice one’s religion freely? Things that we do in the privacy of our own home are protected by the mere fact that the government cannot enter our homes without a warrant. The only practical benefit of providing a legal freedom to practice one’s religion is to allow people to freely do this in public.
Permalink
Share This
June 20, 2007
Posted at 3:40 pm by Richard and tagged belief, christianity, climate-change, creationism, dinosaurs, evolution, fundamentalism, global-warming, jesus, politics, psychology, religion, science. Popularity: 12% [?]
I found an interesting article today about why some people resist science, and what these authors suggest is that distrust in science can be traced back to how science and alternative views are presented to children.
Essentially, in matters for which we are unable to understand and evaluate the facts for ourselves, we try to evaluate the trustworthiness of the source.
Few of us are qualified to assess claims about the merits of string theory, the role in mercury in the etiology of autism, or the existence of repressed memories. So rather than evaluating the asserted claim itself, we instead evaluate the claim’s source. If the source is deemed trustworthy, people will believe the claim, often without really understanding it.
It seems only natural, and a perfectly valid way of making up your opinions about things. The problem occurs when we don’t know what sources to trust.
(Scientific claims) clash with intuitive beliefs about the immaterial nature of the soul and the purposeful design of humans and other animals — and, in the United States, these intuitive beliefs are particularly likely to be endorsed and transmitted by trusted religious and political authorities.
If our own political leaders (Well, thankfully not my political leaders to the same degree - although he did seem a little iffy on global warming for quite a while) show an inherent distrust of science, and people are brought up to believe the church is a reputable source of scientific knowledge, is it any wonder that there’s so much distrust of science?
I’ve read suggestions by scientists that claim that it’s simply not worth arguing with creationists in public forums because those who listen to the creationists already distrust science, and nothing they say (no matter how rational) will convert them. Maybe we need to start earlier? I read a post the other day (dammed if I could find it again - help me out if you know what I’m talking about) that suggested the idea of creating a textbook for use in school which rationally outlined the creationist vs. evolution debate in an easy-to-understand yet scientifically accurate way. Maybe if we can help establish that scientists are the ones who should be trusted when it comes to scientific matters, and not politicians or the church.
(Via A Whore in the Temple of Reason)
Permalink
Share This
June 13, 2007
Posted at 2:19 pm by Richard and tagged agnosticism, atheism, buddhism, catholosim, confucianism, existentialism, harekrishna, hinduism, humour, islam, jehovahswitness, judaism, newage, nihilism, pagan, protestantism, religion, satanism, scientology, soplipsism, taoism, zen. Popularity: 20% [?]
Here are some simple ways that you can compare all the major world religions:
- Read The Big Religion Chart,
or
- Read this:
TAOISM - Shit happens
CONFUCIANISM - Confucius says: “Shit happens.”
BUDDHISM - If shit happens, it isn’t really shit.
ZEN - What is the sound of shit happening?
HINDUISM - This shit happened before.
ISLAM - If shit happens, it is the will of Allah.
PROTESTANT - Let shit happen to someone else.
CATHOLIC - If shit happens, you deserve it.
JUDAISM - Why does this shit always happen to us?
JEHOVAH’S WITNESS - Let us in and we’ll tell you why shit happens
HARE KRISHNA - Shit happens. Shit happens. Shit happens.
PAGAN - Shit is part of the goddess, too.
SCIENTOLOGY - This book gets rid of your shit.
EXISTENTIALISM - Everything is shit, so let’s be depressed.
NIHILISM - Everything is shit, so let’s blow it all up.
SATANISM - I made this shit happen and I’m glad about it.
SOLIPSISM - This shit happens to me alone, but I am the cause of it
ATHEISM - I don’t believe this shit.
AGNOSTICISM - What is this shit?
NEW AGE - For $300 I can help you achieve Shit Happens Awareness
Permalink
Share This
« Previous entries · Next entries »
Posts
