Religon is dying,,. and that is a good thing
by ryan29August 4th, 2009 at 9:08 AM
Filed under: Philosophy & Religion
 |
|
I read this little blurb in the Chicago Sun Times on 26 July 2009 and thought I would share. According to Trinity College's American Religious Identification Survey "about 15 percent of American claim no religious affiliation, up from 8.2 percent in 1990". 15 percent, if my math is right, that's around 30 million Americans, not children, but people who make up their own minds have no use for religion. That's a huge voting block there, 30 million people, time to organize ourselves and make ourselves heard. Before you start lighting candles, I personally have nothing against religion, as long as a person isn't brainwashed and makes their own decisions regarding it. The 4 major religions all have good morals and examples in them, but all they are are stories, the same types of myths that belong in Greek or Roman mythology. Good stories but people this is the 21st century, we don't need myths to help us in our lives. It seems to me that if in almost 20 years, the number of people with no religious affiliation has nearly doubled, that says a lot about what direction our country is headed. Namely Americans are getting tired of these hypocritical religious leaders, and all the bullshit and contradictions of religion itself. Now I know there are a lot of people who without religion would be sad and empty because they are so close minded that cannot tolerate any other thoughts but their own brainwashed views that some priest or pastor or whatever has been shoving down their throats for ever, and probably molesting little kids in the process. That really bothers me, how so many people could continue to follow a religion that sweeps scandals under the rug. Anyone that follows the advice of a religion that covers up child molesting, there is something wrong with them and you. Islam is as bad if not worse. The use of terror under the pretext of God is so wrong, I don't even know where to begin. it is hardly surprising, Islam like Christianity was spread by the sword and it's followers are as warped as Christians. Look at the way it treats women for starters, your telling me that God (call him Allah, Jehovah,Krishna, it's all the same) doesn't see men and woman as equals? Sounds like the middle ages to me. Religious Fundamentalism is wrong, there is no honor in abusing the name of God. Finally, I think the main point that survey was trying to make is that, at least in America, there is a great number of people who are doing the best they can in this life, are concerned what they an get done now, not in some promised after life. You only get one life, why spend it in devotion to something that nobody knows will come true of not. Lack of Faith? for sure! Myself and others have faith in ourselves. Besides, which, the survey doesn't ask if people are spiritual, merely if they are religious or not. Being spiritual is not the same as being religious, it just means your a open minded person who has no use for ancient dogmas that are used to keep people in line. God is dying, his followers are killing him/her with their lies, deceit, and cover ups. Not to mention the thousands of years of persecution of people who didn't see it the way those in charge wanted it. As for me, I'm proud of the fact I belong in that 15% group. Peace and love always, Ryan the Great |
 |
Rate this Article
Submit a Critique
Critiques
Show Oldest First It appears there are some people that, for whatever reason (complications at birth, drug influence, severe brain trauma, etc), do not possess the ability to distinguish between right and wrong. There are people that legitimately feel they are doing right by killing others.
Yes, absolutely. I have no disagreement with that. There are small samples of nut cases, but then there are larger examples as well. Take the Nazis for instance. The Allies fought with the conviction that they were "good" and the Nazis "bad." However, the Nazis (had you asked them) would have said, "No, we're the good guys and the Allies are the bad guys." But when we look back through the lens of history and call one side "good" and the other side "bad", we're not just saying that one side happens to suite our tastes, or private fancies. We're saying that there really is some standard of Right and Wrong that is higher up and farther back than either of the two forces, and that one of them comes closer to being in alignment with that standard than the other one does. You don't call a line crooked unless you have an idea of what a straight line is.
The summary of the points I want to make up to now are simply that 1) The Moral Law exists, 2) we did not invent this Law, but find it pressing in on us, and 3) this Law had to have come from some Director, or Force, or Power, or Mind outside of myself and outside of the physical facts of the universe. The rock must obey the law of gravity, and I too am under the influence of Somebody or Something that wants me to behave in a certain way.
The implications of this are very uncomfortable, but I'll have to get to that later. It's 10:00PM but Mrs. Llano wants me to plant her trees.
:-)
LlanoEscatado- Mrs. Llano just bought some trees for our yard (she's not a sociopath but stay with me).
XD
As you have well stated there are sociopaths and others who do not obey The Moral Law at all. Physical laws tell you what objects do if they are dropped or accelerated or heated. The Moral Law tells you not what humans do, but what humans ought to do. In other words, we find that there is something at play here that is above and beyond the actual facts. There is the way men behave, and then there is the way you know that they ought to behave. And this does not simply mean behavior that is convenient to me.
I agree that most people have an internal moral compass that tells them what is right and what is wrong. And it's indisputably true most people frequently ignore this compass and behave in ways that are convenient to them. But what I mean by sociopaths is that some (certainly not all, and this by no means represents the majority of people) do not just ignore their moral compass, they seem to not possess one. It appears there are some people that, for whatever reason (complications at birth, drug influence, severe brain trauma, etc), do not possess the ability to distinguish between right and wrong. There are people that legitimately feel they are doing right by killing others. I'm not talking about people who did what was convenient then tried to justify it later. I'm speaking of the McVeighs of the world who had deep convictions they were doing the right thing, and stated they would do it al over again right up to their dying breath. These people seem to not possess a moral compass, or if they do it appears a great deal different than that of most.
I think your points about society and the burning car are spot-on.
Yes, there are sociopaths and others who do not share our morality. That is certainly true and a given. So let's look at that because we can get something useful from it.
Mrs. Llano just bought some trees for our yard (she's not a sociopath but stay with me). The problem is she bought the wrong kind of trees and I made the mistake of pointing this out. "What do you mean wrong" she protested. "How can a tree be wrong?" Great question. Of course, I didn't mean 'wrong' in any moral sense, only that the trees she bought do not suit my purpose. (Mrs. Llano wants shade and fall color. I want peaches. But I digress.) The tree can't be Right or Wrong or anything other than what it is. A shade tree is obeying nature's laws just as well as a peach tree. But from her point of view one is 'good' and the other 'bad', and from my point of view it's the other way around. Neither of us means 'good' or 'bad' in any moral sense. The tree that grows up to produce peaches is just doing what peach trees do. Objects fall to the ground when they are dropped, water boils at a certain temperature at sea level, peach trees grow up to produce peaches, not coconuts, etc. These are just facts about our world.
But with human beings it is very different. The Moral Law is not simply a fact or descriptor that states what human beings, in fact, do. As you have well stated there are sociopaths and others who do not obey The Moral Law at all. Physical laws tell you what objects do if they are dropped or accelerated or heated. The Moral Law tells you not what humans do, but what humans ought to do. In other words, we find that there is something at play here that is above and beyond the actual facts. There is the way men behave, and then there is the way you know that they ought to behave. And this does not simply mean behavior that is convenient to me. For example, it can be easy and convenient for me to break a promise, or cheat on a test, or pollute the environment to maximize profits, or force myself onto a beautiful woman instead of leaving her alone. Many of the things we do are against what we desire at the time or are otherwise costly or inconvenient.
And you're right, we've learned over time that certain rules are a must. For there to be any safety or happiness for any of us quite a lot of restraint is necessary and we all have to play fair. But if I said, "Why should I not kill you and take your money?" (assuming I could get away with it), and you said, "Because that's not good for society", and I said, "So what? To hell with you and society. Why should I care what's good for society except insofar as it is good for me personally?" You would say, "Because you shouldn't kill and steal" and we'd simply be right back where we started. "What's the point of baseball?" I say. "To score runs," you say. "No, that just states the objective of the game, not the reason for playing it." Saying that I shouldn't kill or steal because society will benefit simply states what decent behavior is, not why I should behave decently. So, we're back to, "You shouldn't be a murderer or a thief."
To come at it another way, if I come upon a screaming man trapped in a burning car I have two instincts that will kick in. The first is an instinct to help the man (the herd instinct). The second is an instinct to stay away from the burning car (the self-preservation instinct). But a third thing is there also, and that is an impulse which drives me to want to suppress the desire to stay away and encourage the desire to help the man. This impulse that judges between the two instincts must therefore be something apart from either one of them. I want to be safe, of course. That instinct is powerful and dominant, and that's why we give medals to heroes who place themselves in danger. But we have other instincts and impulses as well and all of them are appropriate at times and inappropriate at other (hunger, sex, altruism, etc.). Sometimes they should be suppressed and at other times encouraged. So, The Moral Law is not itself one of our instincts, but rather something that directs our instincts and tells us which ones are appropriate at the time. Just as all of the notes on a piano are "right" at certain times and "wrong" at others. The composer tells us which ones. He is not one of the notes.
LlanoEscatado- Count:
The previous posts ought to be re-read before continuing the discussion so that we're up to speed on the train of thought. In those posts I made the case that The Moral Law exists. (Some may call it the law of common decency, fair play, the natural order of things, or whatever.) This is obvious when you think about it even for a moment, and no one challenged that. It is also obvious that we all fall short of this standard. No one challenged that idea either. So far so good.
Llano, first off thank you for continuing this discussion, I'm looking forward to seeing where it leads.
I went back a few months and reread the original posts. I agree there is clearly a sense of fairness that we posess, and that we fall short of adhering to it all the time. Another point you made back in those posts is that we judge others by their actions, and judge ourselves on our intentions, which was very well said. I don't believe that everyone, is born with an equal sense of morality, some sociopaths have a low amount and some are born without this sense at all. By and large, however, I believe the vast majority of people (80-90%+) do possess it.
I would now add that this law is something that we did not invent on our own but is also something that we know we ought to obey. Otherwise, we would not bother making excuses for ourselves when we violate the law nor have any reason to get bent out of shape when others violate it at our expense. So, I have a question: Where did this law come from? It's a fair question, and it's also one that science can not answer. Science creates experiments, makes observations, and records findings. Science is good and necessary and all the rest, but it can not answer questions that do not lend themselves to science. I mean, if you want to know something about impressionistic art you don't go to the college of veterinary medicine to ask somebody.
I agree, we definitely didn't invent our sense of morality. There are without doubt some questions science cannot answer. This may be one of them. There are attempts, however, by science to explain where our sense of morality comes from.
Evolution of Morality
The theory is that social behavior evolved to allow early animals to form and maintain groups, allowing them to survive better than those that were left to survive on their own. Humans are much more social, and have evolved more complex emotions to facilitate group survival, ie altruism, empathy, and morality.
There are two dominant views. The creationists believe that an intelligent force of some kind created the universe, and others believe that by some series of cosmic accidents the right chemicals came together at just the right temperature, etc., and then somehow arranged themselves into elements that through some further freak chain of events, reacted with each other to produce simple life forms that ultimately evolved into creatures like ourselves who are able to reason. These are the two dominant views. But even if science could prove how we got here and completely explain the chain if events which brought forth our world as we know it, it would still stand silent before questions like, "Why does the universe exist?" and, "Is there any meaning behind it?" Those questions are not appropriate for science.
This is true, many scientists have flat out said that those questions are inappropriate for science, and that it is ill-equipped to provide answers to those types questions for the forseeble future. The current scientific explanation for the precise conditions around us that support life on this planet (just the right distance from the sun, optimal balance of hydrogen in the ozone to name only a few) is that with such an astronomical number of planets in the universe (a number so large it cannot even be grasped), some are bound to, by sheer chance, exhibit the right conditions to sustain life.
I would say that the one thing we have the most information about in the world is ourselves. On that topic we have inside information so to speak. And when we look inside ourselves we find that we are strangely underneath this Moral Law which urges us to do right and bothers us when we do wrong. It is an influence that would not be able to be observed by an outside scientific observer looking in on us. All the observer would be able to do is report what we actually did, not what we ought to have done. What we ought to do would be invisible to an outside observer. What we ought to do is something that is within ourselves. So, we will never figure out whether the universe was created by some intelligent power or mind by looking at the pictures from the Hubble telescope or making scientific observations. The only place we can look to find such an influence is within ourselves. And when we look within ourselves to find such an influence it turns out that the answer is "Yes", we do find something.
But do not jump to the conclusion that this force or mind is the God of the Christian religion. That's going way too fast. As one writer put it, "I'm not yet within 100 miles of the Christian God." All I've said so far is that there appears to be Something behind the universe that is directing it, urging us to do right and causing us to feel badly when we do wrong, and that's not necessarily a good thing. It gets a lot messier from here.
We may never figure out how the universe was created by making scientific observations. But then again, we may. No one can say for sure. But I see your point. Is there something there? Absolutely, I couldn't agree more. I'm not entirely sure the message coming from inside is the same for all people, but it would be unfair of me to jump ahead there at this point before reading more about what you have to say. I'm looking forward to reading more.
Count:
The previous posts ought to be re-read before continuing the discussion so that we're up to speed on the train of thought. In those posts I made the case that The Moral Law exists. (Some may call it the law of common decency, fair play, the natural order of things, or whatever.) This is obvious when you think about it even for a moment, and no one challenged that. It is also obvious that we all fall short of this standard. No one challenged that idea either. So far so good.
I would now add that this law is something that we did not invent on our own but is also something that we know we ought to obey. Otherwise, we would not bother making excuses for ourselves when we violate the law nor have any reason to get bent out of shape when others violate it at our expense. So, I have a question: Where did this law come from? It's a fair question, and it's also one that science can not answer. Science creates experiments, makes observations, and records findings. Science is good and necessary and all the rest, but it can not answer questions that do not lend themselves to science. I mean, if you want to know something about impressionistic art you don't go to the college of veterinary medicine to ask somebody.
There are two dominant views. The creationists believe that an intelligent force of some kind created the universe, and others believe that by some series of cosmic accidents the right chemicals came together at just the right temperature, etc., and then somehow arranged themselves into elements that through some further freak chain of events, reacted with each other to produce simple life forms that ultimately evolved into creatures like ourselves who are able to reason. These are the two dominant views. But even if science could prove how we got here and completely explain the chain if events which brought forth our world as we know it, it would still stand silent before questions like, "Why does the universe exist?" and, "Is there any meaning behind it?" Those questions are not appropriate for science.
I would say that the one thing we have the most information about in the world is ourselves. On that topic we have inside information so to speak. And when we look inside ourselves we find that we are strangely underneath this Moral Law which urges us to do right and bothers us when we do wrong. It is an influence that would not be able to be observed by an outside scientific observer looking in on us. All the observer would be able to do is report what we actually did, not what we ought to have done. What we ought to do would be invisible to an outside observer. What we ought to do is something that is within ourselves. So, we will never figure out whether the universe was created by some intelligent power or mind by looking at the pictures from the Hubble telescope or making scientific observations. The only place we can look to find such an influence is within ourselves. And when we look within ourselves to find such an influence it turns out that the answer is "Yes", we do find something.
But do not jump to the conclusion that this force or mind is the God of the Christian religion. That's going way too fast. As one writer put it, "I'm not yet within 100 miles of the Christian God." All I've said so far is that there appears to be Something behind the universe that is directing it, urging us to do right and causing us to feel badly when we do wrong, and that's not necessarily a good thing. It gets a lot messier from here.
Count,
Thanks for the thoughtful response. And glad to hear someone was following the previous discussion. I'll have to go back and read it to figure out where we were when it stopped, but as I recall the points which were made were 1) that The Moral Law exists, and 2) that we break that law all the time. The implications of this are very disturbing but I don't think we got that far.
Regards,
Llano
Llano,
I'm not going to lie, this isn't a subject I know a whole lot about. The questons you raise in your argument make a lot of sense, namely- what happened to the body? Because I know so little about this, I showed your response to a Christian friend well-versed in the Bible. Despite having a few disagreements on certain details (such as Pail and Pilate), he agreed and also thought you brought up some excellent points. Between reading and discussing your post, I learned a quite a lot. A few months ago, you spoke about a Moral Law as a starting basis (it was the third post on page 6 of this thread). Tbh, I was dissapointed when that discussion kind of died out. If possible, I'd like to revisit where you left off earlier in this thread about those philosphical questions behind this.
Count:
An additional thought for you on history (and you will get a different opinion from virtually everyone you ask).
The Bible is not a book, but rather a library. The sixty-six books that are in it were written over a period exceeding 1,000 years by people from many different walks of life (kings, soldiers, fisherman, etc.). Some of its books are specifically about history (Judges, Ruth, Samuel, Kings, Ezra, Esther, etc.), and some are books of poetry (Job, Psalms, Proverbs and some others). Still others are different kinds of books. The point being, not all of the Bible is meant to be taken as history. Many conservatives get in trouble here because they take a story, like the creation story, and make it into something it was never intended to be. A man once told me, "Well, I believe the creation story" and I said, "Which one?" If you read Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 they are very different. And the story in Genesis 2 is 400-600 years older than the story in Genesis 1. These stories are not about geology --rocks and water and wind. They are about theology. They both agree that, "God created..."
With respect to Christ performing miracles I think you have to say that Luke is a source of information whose other accounts have been corroborated with archaeology, and if he has turned out to be right when we have had the opportunity to test him, that strengthens his credibility on other matters. Additionally, Luke was among the many eyewitnesses to these events. The resurrection was the greatest miracle of them all because if it didn't happen nothing else matters.
The empty tomb is reported in very early sources, like Mark's gospel and in a creed from Paul in 1 Corinthians 15. These were so early that they could not possibly have been produced by legend because the people who were at these events were still alive. Paul was challenging the doubters to go talk to these people for themselves. Additionally, you have the testimony of women involved which in first century culture was not admissible in court. (If you were going to make something up you wouldn't have put women in the narrative. It would hurt your credibility.) I think on its face you have to say, "OK, Christ's body was gone. Either the Jews took it, the Romans took it, the disciples took it, or He rose from the dead." If the Jews took it, then when the disciples started running around saying, "He rose from the dead!" all they had to do was produce the body. End of story. With respect to the Romans, recall that they didn't want to kill Him in the first place. Pilate found Him innocent. They had an insurrection on their hands and wanted to restore order, not stoke the fire and fan the flames. In fact, the Roman seal was affixed to the tomb and guards posted at the request of the Jews to specifically prevent the body from being stolen by the disciples (Matthew 27: 63-64) and stirring up trouble. In any event, if the disciples took the body you have to believe that they were able to somehow gather themselves (they had fled in a panic and were hiding for their lives), overcome the Roman guards at the tomb (think "Navy SEALs"), move the stone out of the way (how many tons?) and hide the body --the chances seem extremely remote. Additionally, if they somehow gathered themselves and put together a plan to pull this off then none of them broke under pressure and they all died for something they knew was false. Peter was crucified --upside down at his own request because he said he was not worthy to die in the same manner as Christ. Matthew was run through with a sword. Mark was dragged through the streets until he was dead. Luke was hanged in Greece. James, Jesus' brother, was thrown off of a 100 foot cliff at the southeast corner of the Temple and then clubbed to death. The other James defended his faith so forcefully at trial that one of his Roman guards walked beside him to the place of execution, declared that he agreed with James, and was beheaded alongside of him. Bartholomew was whipped to death, Barnabas stoned to death, and Paul tortured and beheaded. I could go on but the point is that human conspiracies never hold --someone always breaks-- and no one broke here. If the resurrection wasn't true then all of these people died horrible deaths for something they knew was false.
If I'm in error, where's your proof? Again, don't be scared, just prove me wrong.
I see the discussion between Count and Llano reached a pause. However, I'd like to interject with a point against Moral Law as a universal, higher power.
I feel points two and three need some further attention:
I disagree. Moral law is a product of a species' intellect.
Let’s take the movie 300. What is the moral law of Xerxes and his followers? They seem fine with committing the atrocities displayed in the film, both physical and emotional. Spartans, in contrast, had a different philosophy on many points (e.g., slavery, self-worth, pride, and patriotism) therefore an obviously different sense of moral exists between the two entities. Same thing goes for modern US as compared to China or North Korea or somewhere in the Middle East where cultural norms contrast. These points clearly show that moral law is subject to a community, or empire. Such a law is something establish collectively, though not always intentionally, per group and not for humankind to share universally. If my previous points didn’t arouse logic, then consider when history’s Sailors discovered native Hawaiians, or let’s take the modern Brazilian tribes (please see this link to another TAC article on the ethics of tribes), that have clear moral differences from the rest of the world, obviously as a result of their disconnect from the rest of the world.
Next, moral law cannot be universal if it changes, as evidenced throughout time. There are countless examples from history of things that were once okay and acceptable which are now highly frowned upon, forbidden, or subject to legal penalization. Here are very basic examples: Slavery, prostitution, and racism/discrimination.
The fact that moral law is evidenced as something that flexes and changes over time, one can easily see that moral law is, therefore, solely a product of the survival strategy of a higher species, namely humans, for starters. I won’t entertain any argument based on the premise that overtime we are reaching a higher moral standard as proof that we are nearing the universal goal of moral. That is an invalid argument for numerous reasons, especially when most modern religions base their moral dispositions on teachings from ancient times where, as I mentioned above, moral tolerance and acceptance was quite different. Furthermore, and most interestingly, those ancient times surround the alleged presence of God (yes, God) on earth. So has God (whichever God you choose) changed his/her morals also? There are many religions to evaluate in this light, and my point traverses nearly all of them.
It is easy to confuse morals with survival strategies. Do apes exhibit moral? Yes, we’ve seen them hold kittens and could argue that is evidenced moral. But still, apes do not exhibit moral like humans. And comparatively, this difference can be expected, as humans are of a higher species. As we go further down the chain of intellect, it is clear that moral vanishes. Why? Because moral is a more complicated strategy that is supported by cognitive ability, conscious or unconscious, and higher species find value in this strategy. It’s a way to survive.
To further explain the continuum of intellect, I fancy insect examples the most. They strategize quite well, in some ways better than humans. However, ants, for instance, will dispose of a living ant who mistakenly wears the scent of a dead ant. They work like machines, which exhibits utilization of the full capacity of their resources (i.e., ants are a bit short of the human reasoning yet perform amazing physical feats), just as moral demonstrates ours.