News of interest to former Christians

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

The secularization of American public education has bred a nation of devout religious illiterates.

By Patrick Grumley and Matt Leighton

While it seems to be a growing trend for religious enthusiasts to claim that secular, and even atheist, ideologies are hugging the public square, evangelicalism seems to have more than just outlived the late Rev. Jerry Falwell. To date, Christianity has been the self-proclaimed founder of American morality. More recently however, Jesus and the divinely inspired have found competition at the book store by atheist authors such as Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins on the subject of morality and divinity. This dichotomy of ideals has fostered the public war between the religious and secular State, much to the amusement of European onlookers.

For many elementary schools in Europe, students are taught compulsory religious education. By middle school, students are well aware of the holy books of Christianity, Islam, Judaism and have some understanding of Buddhism and Hinduism. In spite of this knowledge, most European students are far less likely to regularly attending church, a mosque or synagogue. Americans seem to be just the opposite. As Stephen Prothero, the head chair of the Department of Religion at Boston University regards religion in the United States, "here faith without understanding is the norm, and religious ignorance is bliss."

Most Americans understand the central tenet of a separation of church and state, but a University of North Carolina study revealed few undergraduates can name the clauses that determine the extent of this separation (the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses), or even where it is found in the constitution (the First Amendment). The secularization of American public education has bred a nation of devout religious illiterates. The First Amendment clause of freedom of religion has been whittled down to an easier stance of freedom from religion.

This begs the question: was the United States founded by a homogeneous team of Christian scholars as so many "born agains" like to claim? One does not need to look too far for the questioned to be answered. When the words, "founding fathers" are uttered out of any mouth, perhaps two of the most prominent figures to proverbially appear would be Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson. Both of these men adopted the nonreligious and less indoctrinated stance of Deism (loosely defined as a belief in a higher authority through nature's evidence, not divine revelation), and were certainly not convinced the Bible was divine corollary. Once again, any inquisitive mind only has to look as far as the autobiographies of either man to find evidence of this assertion. In Franklin's autobiography he directly claims to be a, "thorough Deist," and Jefferson's rhetoric almost always referred to a creator and not to Jesus. It then becomes rather obvious that the constitutional clauses were put in place not just to show toleration to those who will choose a non-Judeo-Christian ideology in the future, but also to facilitate the non-religious position of some of those who created it.

Sociologist Peter L. Berger once remarked that if India is the most religious country, and Sweden is the least, then the United States is a nation of Indians ruled by Swedes. Well, not really. The secular left feel just as besieged as the religious right. A commonly held fear by secularists is the notion that popular political thought is stumbling back to a medievalist theocracy where President George W. Bush and his acolytes answer to God before the people. Much to the consternation of this school of thought, nearly 90 percent of Congress claim to reference the Bible when making important legislative decisions. In the year 2000, Christianity claimed a score of 50 out of 50 as the religion held by State Governors. Similarly, 93 percent of Americans say they would elect a Jew to the presidency, but only around half of Americans would vote for a properly suited atheist.

Religion is as pervasive in civic society as it was during the First and Second Great Awakening. The debate on whether America is Christian or secular nation is fundamentally confused, it has always been both. The United States by law is a secular nation. God is not mentioned in the constitution, and the first amendment and Supreme Court litmus tests have prohibited the endorsement of religion by the State. Nonetheless, the free exercise clause grants citizens religion by choice and safeguards religious liberty. The irony of the situation is both the faithful and the secularists act as though they are on the verge of extinction, while neither is close to it, nor is either close to monopoly.

Most of the theist doctrines that are dismissed as fables by Europeans such as heaven and hell, the resurrection of Jesus and Noah's flood story are enthusiastically adopted as divine truth by American believers. Americans are staunchly religious, and through the international lens are many times viewed as Christian fanatics and fundamentalists. However, Americans put their money where their mouth is. The annual giving to houses of worship in the United States of $88 billion is around the gross domestic product of Syria. The devaluation of the dollar may not only be weighed in monetary terms, as most Americans, including the more than 250 million who claim to be Christian, can only name on average five of the possible 12 Ten Commandments pending on the Catholic, Protestant or Jewish text they are derived from.

If Americans are to contribute to intellectual civil discourse on the subject of religion, it is a prerequisite to first understand their own religion as well as the religions of their allies and adversaries. The most widely quoted Biblical saying, "God helps those who help themselves" is nowhere to be found in the Bible, but was originally found in Aesop's Fables, and later transliterated to the modern aphorism by Benjamin Franklin. American politicians and diplomats manifest the same religious illiteracy of the citizens who elected and nominate them. When asked whether al-Qaida was a Sunni or Shiite organization, the head of the House Intelligence Committee incorrectly guessed Shiite. Then again, he is not alone as many Americans connect Islam to terrorism and Islamo-fascism, but lack any knowledge to back this claim. When learning any subject, a minimal understanding always precedes critical evaluation. The same formula needs to be applied to religion. If one decides to adopt or denounce the Quran or Bible, it may be good practice to have read them first.

What do you think?
 
Comments:
Anonymous Anonymous said...
First point: "can only name on average five of the possible 12 Ten Commandments pending on the Catholic, Protestant or Jewish text they are derived from."
The Commandments are derived from the 42 negative confessions in the Egyptian Book of the Dead. Much of Judeo/Christianity is based on the Egyptian Religion.

Next: The sooner Americans learn the truth that there is no "God" and the bible is a poor book of fiction and give up stupid religion the better. Religion poisons everything. The majority of wars in the history of humums were caused by religion. Remember how Geo. Dubya Bush said "God" told him to invade Iraq. Remember 9/11. Religion must be eradicated from the whole World.


Anonymous Gabe said...
Anonymous,

Damn, you're not helping the problem at all. You've gone too far. If I absolutely HAD to pick, I think I would choose a country ruled by religious moderates than by someone like you. Lighten up bro! We're about free-thought and critical thinking, not secular totalitarianism!


Blogger kulkarni said...
THE MAJORETY OF PEOPLE WHO FOLLOW THEIR RELIGION,SIMPLY DO SO BECAUSE THEY ARE TAUGHT TO LIVE THAT WAY FROM CHILDHOOD. THEY ARE NOT BOTHERED, EVERY BODY IS WORIED ABOUT HIS DAILY LIVEING.THIS APPLIES TO ALL RELIGIONS,CHIRSTIANS, MUSLEEMS, HINDUS AND THE REST.
IF EVERY BODY LEARNS ABOUT THEIR RELIGIONS IN DETAIL LIKE IN MUSLEEM MADRSAS THEN THIS WORLD WILL NOT BE A SAFE PLACE TO LIVE IN. LET US BE PROUD THAT WE ARE NOT FANATICS.WE ARE BREATHING A FREE AIR ONLY BECAUSE WE ARE ALL NOT FANATICS


Anonymous trancelation said...
I, uh . . . I'm definitely with Anonymous. Religion MUST be eradicated from the world. The best way to accoplish this is to prove religion wrong at every turn, spreading free-thought and social consciousness and atheism at every turn, and to critically analyze ALL religion at every turn. Religious moderates, as pleasant as they may be, are still kissing the ass of religion, and no matter how many Vegan diets they eat, how many bikes they ride, or how many environmentalist rallies they attend, they are still allowing extremist, fundamentalist, lunatic religion to thrive. All because they are the "nicer," "softer" version of that.

Fuck that.


Blogger Audie said...
You guys are all going to HELL!!!

Hahahahahah...Just kidding. It's me, Audie. I'm finally back to some sembelance of civilation. I've been in Bum-fuck Iraq for the last 5 months without internet access. I'm now in Tikrit for hopefully the rest of this deployment.
I have really missed you guys and the great discussions on here. I look foreward to getting to know some of the new people that I've seen post so far.
Well, I have about 20,000 emails to sort through (many from this site) So I'll chat with you all later. Take care, Audie (who is living proof that there can exist an athiest in a firefight)


Anonymous no god/no fear said...
I'm with anonymous. There is a certain truth to the notion that it is the moderates who tend to add legitimacy to even those with the most ridiculous beliefs because moderates tend to want to respect everyone's beliefs as long as they don't pose an immediate threat. These are the same people who tout Islam as a 'peaceful' religion, in spite of the hateful garbage found in its 'sacred' writings. Or the same group who won't call out Mormons even when there is overwhelming evidence that John Smith was a total fraud, because they believe they should respect every dumb belief system that comes down the pike. Good riddance to all religion (superstition).

Sophia


Anonymous Linus said...
This is an interesting site and a great article.

some thoughts

I understood that part of the reason for the first amendment was that many of the settlers that had left europe for the new world had done so because of religious or denominational intolerance in europe, which had had state backing - stopping the state from identifying with any one worldview was meant to ensure freedom from persecution for those who held other beliefs. Is this accurate?

I have to say that the state of religious education in europe is a joke - at least in my experience. My education did not prepare me in the slightest to exercise critical thinking about philosophy or worldview ("religious" ones or otherwise) or meaning or purpose or morality or ethics. RE lessons didn't even really cover the basics the article talked about. It was unengaging and generally ignored by all.

I would argue that Europeans are far less likely to belong to any kind of faith community not because they're better educated, but because they generally don't care (or certainly aren't taught in school) about making any decisions about what they believe. Many europeans don't go to church/synagogue/mosque etc for exactly the same reason many americans do - that's the way they were brought up, and they've never exercised any thought for themselves about what to believe, so they just drift along. The "don't care/not aware/never thought about it/actively avoid confronting such issues" attitude of mainstream society in the UK has a subtle but incredibly strong conforming effect on people.

Having said that its a sweeping and unhelpful generalisation to say that all europeans dismiss the resurrection of Jesus or the idea of a spiritual reality as a myth.

I agree with gabe - its worth pointing out that two of the most brutal dictatorships in history were athiestic in nature (Stalinist Russia and the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia) Eradicating religion would mean eradicating freedom of speech, thought, expression, the freedom to make up your own mind. Ultimately, it would mean eradicating people, some of whom express a faith which is very well thought through.

Kulkarni actually I think fanatics are usually people who AREN'T properly educated about their religion - they tend to have very one sided/partial knowledge of the teachings they put their trust in and are certainly often ignorant of other worldviews. An education that exposes an individual to many worldviews (theistic and atheistic) will result in a more considered decision on how to live and what to believe about the nature of existence.


Anonymous no god/no fear said...
I agree with gabe - its worth pointing out that two of the most brutal dictatorships in history were athiestic in nature (Stalinist Russia and the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia)

I hate this argument because it's very misleading. Atheism is NOT a belief system--it is the absence of belief. Saying atheism was the driving force behind these terrible regimes is as ridiculous as saying their absence in a belief of Santa Claus caused them to be evil dictators.

Sophia


Blogger HereticChick said...
"I agree with gabe - its worth pointing out that two of the most brutal dictatorships in history were athiestic in nature (Stalinist Russia and the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia) Eradicating religion would mean eradicating freedom of speech, thought, expression, the freedom to make up your own mind. Ultimately, it would mean eradicating people, some of whom express a faith which is very well thought through."

I also hate this argument as atheism itself was not the driving force behind the inhumane and illogical behavior of those dictators.

What makes you think that freedom of speech and expression are religious rights? Those have nothing to do with religion. Eradicating religion doesn't have to be forceful, regardless. It will, hopefully, eradicate itself over time.


Anonymous Linus said...
i didn't say athiesm was the driving force behind these crimes. I meant athiest in terms of the state - sorry, that was clumsy; i should have said secular totalitarianism to borrow Gabe's phrase. I was arguing that eradicating religion would not stop war or atrocities - the attempt would result in one, cos if you try to eradicate "religion" you end up eradicating people - and i was attempting to back this up by historical evidence that regimes that attempted an eradication of religion were far from utopian love-ins.

I see what you're getting at with the santa claus thing but i don't agree entirely - the regimes in question were scrapping a society based on a morality and legal and political system derived from a theistic worldview with one dervied from an atheistic worldview. They attempted this not because they didn't believe in santa clause, but because they didn't believe in religion/a spiritual reality. So their lack of belief in santa claus was irrelevant to their actions in power, but their atheism wasn't. Obviously the vast majority of athiests are not brutal dictators, rather they are beautiful human beings.

But i genuinely don't understand how atheism works as a philosophical base for a society - how do you derive a morality from such a worldview - how do you legitimise authority and how do you define justice? How do you make decisions on the value of a human life and the rights of an individual etc? i am very ignorant in such matters and would appreciate your thoughts.

I'm equally uncomfortable with the "athiesm is not a belief system" argument as you are with the athiesm is bad cos of stalin argument - again, i think its misleading. A conviction that there is no God is an element in someones worldview - in that sense its a belief. The absence of belief would be a large degree of uncertainty one way or the other, which i would define as agnosticism.

i don't think freedom of speech is a religious right, i think its a fundamental human right for all regardless of belief. And lots of people hold religious beliefs. Of course that may change but "eradicate" seemed to suggest to me a forceful wiping out. Apologies if that wasn't the intended meaning.


Anonymous Linus said...
sorry hereticchick i've reread my first post and realised its confusing - i meant that in order to eradicate religion, you would have to eradicate the free speech etc of any individual who happened to hold religious beliefs. I wasn't trying to say free speech would somehow cease to exist if there was no such thing as religion.


Blogger .:webmaster:. said...
Linus, Mussolini claimed to be a Christian as did Hitler. How are those dictators better than any others? Hell, Bush claims to be a Christian and he has had no problem ordering the deaths of thousands!

Heil Jesus!


Anonymous No god/No fear said...
But i genuinely don't understand how atheism works as a philosophical base for a society - how do you derive a morality from such a worldview - how do you legitimise authority and how do you define justice? How do you make decisions on the value of a human life and the rights of an individual etc? i am very ignorant in such matters and would appreciate your thoughts.

There's a lot to tackle in your post so I picked this paragraph because it is directly relevant to the other questions or points you made in your post. Morality is something that has evolved over time. What is considered to be 'immoral' behavior has varied and still varies widely from culture to culture and when we compare timeframes even within the same culture. For example, most of us of us would consider slavery to be highly immoral; however, had we lived 150 years ago, we may very well have held entirely different opinions in this matter. Many, many atrocities--including the justification of slavery using 'holy' and 'sacred' writings--occurred under theocratic regimes of all kinds but those are conveniently overlooked by believers.

The best question to illustrate how morality is an evolving societal construct is to ask you this: If you knew there were no god watching your every move and no hope of any afterlife--including the reward of heaven or the punishment of hell, would your behavior change? Would you steal from people? Kill someone that got in the way of something you desired? Would you rape someone if you knew you could get away with it? If the answer is no, then why not? You wouldn't be punished? Would you still help people less fortunate than yourself? If, yes, then why bother--you won't get any reward for it?

Sophia


Blogger .:webmaster:. said...
Sophia,

As the title of this article suggests, start reading: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/nontheism/atheism/whymoral.htmlCLICK HERE


Anonymous No god/No fear said...
.:webmaster:. said...

Sophia,

As the title of this article suggests, start reading: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/nontheism/atheism/whymoral.htmlCLICK HERE

Sorry, WM, I'm lost here. I was answering Linus who, if I read correctly, couldn't understand how atheists could have a lack of belief in a deity and still be moral. I did re-read my previous post and noticed I added question marks at the end of two sentences that I didn't mean to add. I maintain that morality is a societal construct--not something 'revealed' to us by some deity.

Sophia


Anonymous trancelation said...
Men like Hitler and Stalin were not Christian or atheist; they were one thing, and one thing only: complete and total freaking batshit Looney Tunes psychotic. No one is saying that atheism is the foundation for a societal philosophy. And if they are, good for them. Atheist nations in the modern age are the best nations in this world. You might start by looking at them to garner an understanding of how atheism (or secularism) can be a good foundation for a society. Many humans are afraid of the Big Scary Nothing that pops up when they try to seek knowledge of every single facet of their existence. Sadly, it's almost like the Adam and Eve story. Life was great until they tried to dig too deeply into their nature. Some people are just afraid to admit that they don't know, and that fear drives the base human nature of believing a lie just so you don't have to face that reality. I suppose the basis for an atheistic society would be FACT. Acknowledging what we know and don't know. The world doesn't break down because we no longer believe in a supreme creator.


Anonymous Bill said...
Much of humanity is irrantional and fear helps keep people in check. Reward also helps keep people in check.

Religion provides both fear and reward. Never mind that the after life is simply a made up belief at best.

Morality is a mix of origins, but at it's heart seems to be the idea of treating people the way you want to be treated.

Do all religious people do good things for a reward in an after life? Do religious people still hurt people and themselves even though they will be chastised in the afterlife?

Morality need not be based on fear or reward. Religion is not the reason society, in general, works together.

Fear of punishment and freedom from punishment help our irrational nature learn to be more reasonable or simply just more law abiding.

But at the very least it make sense to survive and morality is a by product of our desire to survive.


Anonymous Linus said...
"Linus, Mussolini claimed to be a Christian as did Hitler. How are those dictators better than any others?"

They're not better. sorry, don't understand your point here?

Thanks for the links to the articles have had a quick look but want to understand more. I don't know enough about humanist philosophical and ethical thought to understand how people attempt to build a moral framework without reference to religion.

Sophia yeah sorry i always write long posts. I don't mean to, it just turns out that way. Thanks for your response. Yes moral consensus changes over time, but if morality is JUST an evolving social construct, there are by definition no moral absolutes - it all depends on current widely held beliefs. ie whats fashionable. just because our society defines slavery as immoral doesn't mean that future ones will, any more than past ones have. On what basis does a society decide how it will evolve its morality - how does it define acceptable and unnaceptable behaviour - what's the criteria? So ok yes general views on slavery have changed - why?

and would you argue that slavery IS morally acceptable in a society that finds it morally acceptable? How about the litmus tests you use at the bottom of your post: theft, murder, rape? If you're saying no, even though that society is ok with those actions, i'm not, then you're saying theres more to morality than just whatever happens to be considered socially acceptable at the time.

What about people who want to think critically and make up their own minds on moral issues - do they accept the societal norm just because its the prevalent view at the time? Ideas about morality have changed over time precisely because people have chosen to reject the generally held moral views of their day as inadequate or incorrect. On what basis have they made that decision?

I think if a person's worldview changes, and their morality is genuinely based on their beliefs, then either they will make different moral decisions, or they will make the same moral decisions, but for different underlying reasons. You describe a "carrot and stick" worldview, which motivates people to act in a certain way. There's also a "people have value because they are created by God and should be respected as creative masterpieces" worldview, then theres karma, reincarnation, pantheism (bad ignorant definition: every living thing should be respected as emanating from the cosmic force), yin-yang (opposing forces of order and chaos) etc. Subscribing to any of these worldviews would have an effect on an individual's behaviour. But an atheist would not subscribe to any of them - so what elements in a humanistic (or other?) world view that incorporates Atheism are the basis for " treating people the way you want to be treated." as Bill puts it.

That's a great definition of morality, or at least a major aspect of it. But the question i'm trying to answer is something Sophia said - why bother treating people how you want to be treated? Bill suggests morality is based on survival - whatever helps you survive/your genes propagate is right. This is quite a powerful argument when its pointed out that often what benefits the community benefits the individual. But if life really is a no-holds barred struggle where all that actually matters is to live as long as possible and pass on as much of your genetic data as possible, then there would certainly be times where this morality did not look very much like "treat others how you want to be treated" Is that fair comment? what other moral foundations might a worldview incorporating atheism offer, besides "whatever aids survival = good".


Blogger Telmi said...
Step into a public library and you will not fail to see the abundance of pro-religious books on the shelves. Books arguing against religion are few, comparatively speaking, but this should not come as a surprise considering that the majority of the populace in most if not all cities are theistic. Whether religion is good or bad for humanity would depend on which side you belong, the non-theistic or theistic group. I am an atheist and I think religion should never be allowed to intrude into the public sphere or be used in any way to influence political decisions. A theist may argue that humanity has benefited from religion but looking at history I would counter that religion has caused much anguish and suffering for humanity, including considerable losses in human lives. Although atheism has existed since time immemorial, atheism has in the main been a background item in the picture, but thanks to people like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Dan Barker, Christopher Hitchens, Victor Stenger, Taner Edis, and many others, it is now coming into the foreground. Several debates have been held pitting atheism against theism and having read the arguments for some of these debates, I can confidently say that the arguments for atheism have stood well. I hope that further debates of this nature will continue to be staged in the future.
Many Christians, it has been said, do not know much about the God they believe in, although the Bible is supposedly a book of truths telling stories about their God. As we have seen from the testimonials put up by some Ex-Christians, it was, ironically, through reading of the Bible that prompted their de-conversion. I am among this group. I think there will be more de-conversions when more Xians start reading, critically, their so-called God-inspired book. And when they do, it may dawn on them how ignorant they have been of the God they have been worshipping, a God portrayed as a racist, a misogynist, a capricious tyrant, a cruel, genocidal maniac, etc. There is plenty to quote from the Bible to support such a view. This is a challenge for those who believe in the Bible God: read the Bible or read books written by the authors named above and then evaluate honestly.


Anonymous Anonymous said...
Linus, those are good questions you have on morality. I strongly suggest you read Dan Barkers book "Losing Faith in Faith". He covers the subject very well.
Because the old and new testaments justify slavery it must have contributed greatly to why it was alowed to continue so long. Erich


Anonymous no god/no fear said...
Linus: What I'm understanding from your post is that your whole premise is based upon something that was culturally ingrained in you, which is, there are moral absolutes in this world. But sometimes you have to completely let go of what you were taught--no matter how disturbing this is--to consider other facets of very complex issues.

I think something that would come as a complete surprise to many people is that it is science that has more solid answers to questions like this. There is a pay-off for species that display altruistic behaviors. These behaviors are not found exclusively in humans--they are even found in such seemingly unlikely creatures as bats. Richard Dawkins speaks in depth about this.

Some resources that address the concept of morality and cultural behaviors much more efficiently and rely much more on evidence as opposed to vague concepts such as karma or yin/yang would be books by scientists such as Richard Dawkins. Check out the term 'meme' on Wikipedia to gain an understanding how cultural messages are spread, if this is something that interests you. Science has much more insight into morality and behavior than most people would think. The trouble is, science is much more complex and thorough than just reading about a trite concept such as 'what comes around goes around' and people tend to want easy answers. However, if you resist that urge, the answers found in science are so much more satisfying.

Sophia


Blogger Astreja said...
Linus: "...if morality is JUST an evolving social construct, there are by definition no moral absolutes - it all depends on current widely held beliefs..."

Well, that's how I see it. Community consensus, no absolutes.

However, do not underestimate the ability of "mere" communities to improve and develop workable and beneficial codes of conduct.

In a sense it is a form of natural selection: Societies that hash out reasonable codes of ethics tend to endure. Societies with an "every man for himself" ethic tend to disintegrate because no one trusts anyone else *not* to kill them. And societies with excessively harsh hierarchical structures are eventually overthrown by people seeking a more equitable distribution of power.


Anonymous Linus said...
Thankyou all for your replies - i appreciate you giving up time to discuss this and feel i'm getting an insight - so cheers, i appreciate it. Thanks to Sophia and Astreja for introducing the concept of meme and the natural selection of beneficial moralities. That's a really ineresting idea which i'm still trying to fully get my head round. Erich thanks for the kind words and book recommendation - i'll try and check it out.

The slavery issue is a bit of a tangent i guess, but whilst many people did try to use the bible to justify slavery, its important to remember that many of the reformers were motivated to oppose slavery because it was contrary to the morality they derived from their Christian worldview. Also the slavery that was part of Jewish culture legislated for in the OT was of a very different nature from that practiced in the 1700s (concept of Jubilee for example).

And the slavery issue is a good example to illustrate the discussion that we're having here.

The meme and selection ideas can help us to understand how ideas develop and change, and how likely they are to survive, but as far as i understand the concept at present, they don't in themselves act as a source or basis of ideas, nor do they provide the criteria by which an individual might decide whether any given idea is true or attractive enough for them to adhere to. Thus each individual must formulate at least a semblance of a foundational worldview - whether conciously developed or unconciously received, relativistic or absolute in nature, its still necessary to have a philosophical framework, a working theory of reality, on which you base your moral decisions. several people have now pointed to "science", by which i assume is meant a materialist worldview (ie non-supernatural - everything that happens and exists can be explained in terms of 'mechanical' - as in non-thinking - processes). As i understand it, this worldview derives its morality from evolutionary theory - thus the concept of right and wrong is replaced by the concept of beneficial or detrimental to the individual, or to the gene pool to which the individual belongs. I think that this model for the world explains some human emotional and moral behaviour extremely well - ie familial bonds, for example. Also patriotism, sexual attraction and to an extent loyalty.

What i don't think it explains is the empathy felt by a group such as the abolitionists for people of a totally different genetic grouping, or the efforts they went to as a result of that empathy. In no way were these acts beneficial to the individuals in question or to their genetic stock. So why do we commend them? because we think their actions were right and good.

A lot of the people posting on this site write in terms of a morality that far exceeds "do unto others what is beneficial to me and my gene pool". Theres a lot of talk about justice, right and wrong, fairness etc. Unanimous approval of the abolition of slavery. And correspondingly harsh value judgements against any worldview that is seen as being morally reprehensible: I wont serve a god who does this, this and this. All of which i'm in agreement with.

i still fail to see how humanism provides a moral framework outside of (or alongside) evolutionary theory, or how evolutionary theory provides something more than i've given it credit for in terms of moral imperative. so unless someone can show me the thing that i'm missing that would bridge the gap between the worldview and the moral standard that's expressed, then i would have to conclude people are relying unconciously on a morality that does not match their worldview. Presumably because the morality dervived from the worldview is unnacceptable or unworkable. And if a worldview does not provide its adherents with a morality that they can accept, it seems unlikely that this worldview is accurate in its assesment of what a human being is.


Blogger .:webmaster:. said...
"i still fail to see how humanism provides a moral framework"

Start by taking a course on the development of Western Civilization. You'll quickly discover that morality has everything to do with the necessary evolution of human society that takes place over several thousand years and almost nothing to do with Jesus.


Permalink



AddThis Social Bookmark Button Vote up this article on the Atheist Spot

Subscribe to the latest Comments (RSS).
Quickly catch up on all recent comments posted on ExChristian.Net on the Recent Comments page.

<< Home
 
Click here and check out more books in the ExChristian.Net Book Store.