Nov 01,2009, 9:51AM
A Tale of Two Murderers, one Christian and one Atheist
Scenario A: Alex the Christian Murderer
Alex is a Christian active in his church, a deacon and Sunday school teacher. One day Alex comes to hold the belief that God wants him to kill his wife, and so he strangles her and then flees the city. Alex is picked up a few days later in a neighboring state and the media is saturated with images and stories about this Christian and his heinous deed. Alex's church is featured in the news, his pastor and some congregatns are interviewed. Many people suspect that there must be something wrong with that church. Alex's trial and his lurid description of God's direction creates a media sensation. Alex's lawyer pleads insanity. Many people suspect it is the religion that is crazy, and Alex is just one more casualty.
Scenario B: Alex the Atheistic Murderer
Alex is an atheist who attended a free thinkers meeting twice but otherwise has no relationship with a wider atheist community. However he has read a few new atheist books and regularly reads Skeptic and Skeptical Enquirer at the library. One day Alex comes to hold the belief that since there is no God then neither is there any absolute right or wrong. With this conviction as motivation, he devises a plan to kill his wife and collect the insurance money. He then strangles her in a parkade and attempts to make it look like a random home invasion. But when Alex realizes that he was filmed in the parkade on CCTV he flees the city. Alex is picked up a few days later in a neighboring state and the media is plastered with images and stories about this individual and his heinous deed. The role his atheism played in the plot is never mentioned in all the heavy media coverage of the crime or the ensuing trial.
The Moral of the Story
When people are members of a formal organization then their actions tend to taint that organization. (For example: one case of food poisoning at a Taco Bell or one case of discriminatory hiring at a Walmart can create negative image problems for the entire corporation that do not happen when the same thing happens at an independent Taco stand or discount store.)
With a couple billion people is it any wonder that Christianity gets an inordinately high level of blame and bad press for all sorts of heinous deeds committed by a tiny minority of those two billion members?
But the real question is this: are Christian beliefs more likely than atheist beliefs to produce people who perform heinous actions? Certainly atheists have never shown this to be the case, but my question is more basic: how could they ever begin to make a case?
A Tale of Two Murderers, one Christian and one Atheist
Scenario A: Alex the Christian Murderer
Alex is a Christian active in his church, a deacon and Sunday school teacher. One day Alex comes to hold the belief that God wants him to kill his wife, and so he strangles her and then flees the city. Alex is picked up a few days later in a neighboring state and the media is saturated with images and stories about this Christian and his heinous deed. Alex'...
Facebook
Yahoo Buz
My space
Digg
LIKEDIN
MIXX
Stumble It!
Del.icio.us
NewsVine
Email
Print
ShareMost recent comments
1.November 17,2009, 9:09PM
lpepperw: "ca, that is not what I said, and, I don't think you are
as clueless as you want to seem."
Honestly, I did not have any idea what you meant when you wrote both of the following statements in the same comment -- lpepperw: "I do believe that if God says something is good then it is good... Not everything God commanded was "good"."
I'll quote myself
CA: "how did you come to figure out that you are not blindly following Lucifer?"
Let me flesh this question out a bit. What would you say to a guy that says, "I follow Lucifer because He is the creator of the universe. He, being the creator, told me not to listen to Yahweh -- as everything Yahweh says is lies as Yahweh is the prince of darkness. Also, Lucifer admits to telling his followers to kill infants and children with swords many times. This is, of course, Good because there is nothing that Lucifer could command that would be evil -- Lucifer himself being the definition of Good."
There is nothing that I could bring as an example to show that Lucifer is in fact evil -- and ordering His followers to do evil things -- why? Because even if it REALLY looks like he's ordering his followers to do evil, this guy will say, 'Every thing that Lucifer says is good, is good. Every decision Lucifer makes is the right, correct, righteous decision, even if we don't understand or agree.'
Pepper, what would you say to this guy? How do you know that you are not worshiping the prince of darkness (ie making the same mistake the guy in my example is making)?
as clueless as you want to seem."
Honestly, I did not have any idea what you meant when you wrote both of the following statements in the same comment -- lpepperw: "I do believe that if God says something is good then it is good... Not everything God commanded was "good"."
I'll quote myself
CA: "how did you come to figure out that you are not blindly following Lucifer?"
Let me flesh this question out a bit. What would you say to a guy that says, "I follow Lucifer because He is the creator of the universe. He, being the creator, told me not to listen to Yahweh -- as everything Yahweh says is lies as Yahweh is the prince of darkness. Also, Lucifer admits to telling his followers to kill infants and children with swords many times. This is, of course, Good because there is nothing that Lucifer could command that would be evil -- Lucifer himself being the definition of Good."
There is nothing that I could bring as an example to show that Lucifer is in fact evil -- and ordering His followers to do evil things -- why? Because even if it REALLY looks like he's ordering his followers to do evil, this guy will say, 'Every thing that Lucifer says is good, is good. Every decision Lucifer makes is the right, correct, righteous decision, even if we don't understand or agree.'
Pepper, what would you say to this guy? How do you know that you are not worshiping the prince of darkness (ie making the same mistake the guy in my example is making)?
--ConverseAtheist
2.November 09,2009, 10:06PM
I'm basing my comment solely on your words.
--Cafeeine
3.November 09,2009, 9:38PM
"If you view yourself as cattle and god as the cattle-master, tending to his stock, your view is justified.
If you see this as a parent-offspring relationship, I shudder for your children"
Your preconcieved notions based on false stereotypes are showing!
If you see this as a parent-offspring relationship, I shudder for your children"
Your preconcieved notions based on false stereotypes are showing!
--lpepperw
4.November 09,2009, 9:26PM
"
I would never say that or think that. If you are a parent or have ever
been a child, you know that there are "good" things your parents would tell
you to do, (Go play, here is a gift etc.) There are also times when a parent
makes the "right" decision or command that doesn't seem "good". (pick up
your toys, you cannot do that, do that and you will be disciplined, etc.)
Every thing that God says is good, is good. Every decision God makes is
the right, correct, righteous decision, even if we don't understand or agree.
He made the right, deadly, decision for you!"
A parent will discipline a child in order to teach it to eventually become an adult. When he disciplines a child solely because the child does not conform to his whims of how the child is supposed to be, we call that atrocious parenting.
Furthermore n the divine parent scenario, there is no goal of 'adulthood', as we will never reach the status of the parent-god. Instead we will either become eternal happy praising chattel, or eternal suffering burning chattel, and this life is grooming us towards that end.
If you view yourself as cattle and god as the cattle-master, tending to his stock, your view is justified.
If you see this as a parent-offspring relationship, I shudder for your children.
I would never say that or think that. If you are a parent or have ever
been a child, you know that there are "good" things your parents would tell
you to do, (Go play, here is a gift etc.) There are also times when a parent
makes the "right" decision or command that doesn't seem "good". (pick up
your toys, you cannot do that, do that and you will be disciplined, etc.)
Every thing that God says is good, is good. Every decision God makes is
the right, correct, righteous decision, even if we don't understand or agree.
He made the right, deadly, decision for you!"
A parent will discipline a child in order to teach it to eventually become an adult. When he disciplines a child solely because the child does not conform to his whims of how the child is supposed to be, we call that atrocious parenting.
Furthermore n the divine parent scenario, there is no goal of 'adulthood', as we will never reach the status of the parent-god. Instead we will either become eternal happy praising chattel, or eternal suffering burning chattel, and this life is grooming us towards that end.
If you view yourself as cattle and god as the cattle-master, tending to his stock, your view is justified.
If you see this as a parent-offspring relationship, I shudder for your children.
--Cafeeine
5.November 09,2009, 9:04PM
" 'uhoh, I think this Yahweh character might be one of the bad ones...'"
I would never say that or think that. If you are a parent or have ever
been a child, you know that there are "good" things your parents would tell
you to do, (Go play, here is a gift etc.) There are also times when a parent
makes the "right" decision or command that doesn't seem "good". (pick up
your toys, you cannot do that, do that and you will be disciplined, etc.)
Every thing that God says is good, is good. Every decision God makes is
the right, correct, righteous decision, even if we don't understand or agree.
He made the right, deadly, decision for you!
Romans 5:7-9
7For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die.
8But God commends his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
I would never say that or think that. If you are a parent or have ever
been a child, you know that there are "good" things your parents would tell
you to do, (Go play, here is a gift etc.) There are also times when a parent
makes the "right" decision or command that doesn't seem "good". (pick up
your toys, you cannot do that, do that and you will be disciplined, etc.)
Every thing that God says is good, is good. Every decision God makes is
the right, correct, righteous decision, even if we don't understand or agree.
He made the right, deadly, decision for you!
Romans 5:7-9
7For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die.
8But God commends his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
--lpepperw
6.November 09,2009, 11:23AM
lpepperw - Um, CA quoted you exactly. There is no sense denying that you wrote that.
--AnAtheist.Net
7.November 09,2009, 12:22AM
ca, that is not what I said, and, I don't think you are
as clueless as you want to seem.
as clueless as you want to seem.
--lpepperw
8.November 08,2009, 11:50PM
lpepperw: "I do believe that if God says something is good then it is good.
... Not everything God commanded was "good"."
I don't follow at all.
Can you give me an example of something that Yahweh could command his followers to do which would make you say, 'uhoh, I think this Yahweh character might be one of the bad ones...'
... Not everything God commanded was "good"."
I don't follow at all.
Can you give me an example of something that Yahweh could command his followers to do which would make you say, 'uhoh, I think this Yahweh character might be one of the bad ones...'
--ConverseAtheist
9.November 06,2009, 4:17PM
"How would you expect a book about lack of belief to go?
--Cafeeine"
Maybe it would have a beautiful cover and no pages? :)
--Cafeeine"
Maybe it would have a beautiful cover and no pages? :)
--lpepperw
10.November 06,2009, 3:46PM
I do believe that if God says something is good then it is good.
If Satan says something is good, then I would consider the source.
"When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies." John 8:44.
The verse in 1Samuel 15, explains itself. God wanted to punish the Amelekites.
Not everything God commanded was "good".
I don't claim to understand everything, I do believe in the One who understands everything. That is where faith comes in.
"1Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see." Hebrews 11. I Corinthians 2 explains why we don't see things the same.
I am not saying that anyone here is amoral, it just seems logical that if
you don't believe in God or Satan, good and evil, where would morals fit in?
Atheits, Stalin, Mao and Hitler killed millions upon millions. Historically
atheism looks as bad or worse then the killings that were done in the name of
religion.
Also, maybe some of my own pre-concieved notions of atheists are running
head-on with your pre-concieved notions of Christians. That someone is just
walking down the street and falls into a Christian hole and stays there without asking the same questions you ask, and seeking answers to all of lifes
questions.
If Satan says something is good, then I would consider the source.
"When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies." John 8:44.
The verse in 1Samuel 15, explains itself. God wanted to punish the Amelekites.
Not everything God commanded was "good".
I don't claim to understand everything, I do believe in the One who understands everything. That is where faith comes in.
"1Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see." Hebrews 11. I Corinthians 2 explains why we don't see things the same.
I am not saying that anyone here is amoral, it just seems logical that if
you don't believe in God or Satan, good and evil, where would morals fit in?
Atheits, Stalin, Mao and Hitler killed millions upon millions. Historically
atheism looks as bad or worse then the killings that were done in the name of
religion.
Also, maybe some of my own pre-concieved notions of atheists are running
head-on with your pre-concieved notions of Christians. That someone is just
walking down the street and falls into a Christian hole and stays there without asking the same questions you ask, and seeking answers to all of lifes
questions.
--lpepperw
11.November 06,2009, 4:26AM
"That's an easy enough claim to test now isn't it?"
Don't forget the use of "truly" in the sentence, AnAtheist. A good setup for a 'no true scotsman' evasion.
I wouldn't say that lpepperw did it deliberately, but I would suggest he clarify what would convince him that a non-amoral atheist is in fact a 'true atheist'.
@lpepperw,
How would you expect a book about lack of belief to go?
Don't forget the use of "truly" in the sentence, AnAtheist. A good setup for a 'no true scotsman' evasion.
I wouldn't say that lpepperw did it deliberately, but I would suggest he clarify what would convince him that a non-amoral atheist is in fact a 'true atheist'.
@lpepperw,
How would you expect a book about lack of belief to go?
--Cafeeine
12.November 06,2009, 12:32AM
lpepperw - "I would think that an atheist who truly does not believe in God or Satan would be amoral."
That's an easy enough claim to test now isn't it?
That's an easy enough claim to test now isn't it?
--AnAtheist.Net
13.November 05,2009, 3:33PM
lpepperw: "I do believe that if God says something is good, then it is good."
What if Satan says that something is good -- is it good?
Or how did you come to figure out that you are not blindly following Lucifer?
Did you flip a coin and just decide to follow God and not Lucifer because the coin landed "tails"?
Do believe that God commanded what is claimed in First Samuel 15: Thus says the Lord of hosts, “I will punish the Amalekites for what they did in opposing the Israelites when they came up out of Egypt. 3Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.”
When God commands His followers to kill children and infants with a sword, is this good because God commanded it?
And if no matter what God commands, you call it "good"; seriously, how could you figure out if you were following Lucifer instead?
What if Satan says that something is good -- is it good?
Or how did you come to figure out that you are not blindly following Lucifer?
Did you flip a coin and just decide to follow God and not Lucifer because the coin landed "tails"?
Do believe that God commanded what is claimed in First Samuel 15: Thus says the Lord of hosts, “I will punish the Amalekites for what they did in opposing the Israelites when they came up out of Egypt. 3Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.”
When God commands His followers to kill children and infants with a sword, is this good because God commanded it?
And if no matter what God commands, you call it "good"; seriously, how could you figure out if you were following Lucifer instead?
--ConverseAtheist
14.November 05,2009, 3:22PM
I appreciate the posts from CA, sorceror, atheist.net. You all show
patience and kindness by taking the time to reply. I understand how
people in general decide what is right and wrong the the complications.
In my nuts and bolts, bottom line, rubber meets the road kind of thinking,
I would think that an atheist who truly does not believe in God or Satan
would be amoral. Please don't take that as an insult. Most atheist writers
seem to be more anti-christianity then without faith in God.
I do believe that if God says something is good, then it is good.
You all seem to be seeking the truth, that is a good thing.
patience and kindness by taking the time to reply. I understand how
people in general decide what is right and wrong the the complications.
In my nuts and bolts, bottom line, rubber meets the road kind of thinking,
I would think that an atheist who truly does not believe in God or Satan
would be amoral. Please don't take that as an insult. Most atheist writers
seem to be more anti-christianity then without faith in God.
I do believe that if God says something is good, then it is good.
You all seem to be seeking the truth, that is a good thing.
--lpepperw
15.November 05,2009, 11:59AM
lpepperw - I still am curious about an atheists source for right and wrong.
Let's turn it around for a second; look up the Euthyphro Dilemma. Is something good because God says so, or does God say something's good because it is good?
Let's turn it around for a second; look up the Euthyphro Dilemma. Is something good because God says so, or does God say something's good because it is good?
--sorceror
16.November 05,2009, 4:00AM
I did not mean for that last comment to sound snarky at all, although it seems that way to me as I read it. it's late, i'm tired, i meant: what i just wrote might not be clear, maybe I if i wrote out an example of where I think our conversation would go.
--ConverseAtheist
17.November 05,2009, 3:47AM
lpepperw: "There seems to be no answer about how an atheist decides what is right and wrong."
We decide in the same way, if you think you have more justification for deciding what is right and wrong, you have yet to mention it. I gave exactly as much of an answer as you have given about how you have decided what is right and wrong.
Since I doubt this makes sense to you, let me anticipate a possible future interaction.
If I wrote:
Me: "There seems to be no answer to how a theist decides what is right and wrong."
pepper: "But I said: I decide right from wrong by being an eye witness to my own life. I did a lot of wrong, according to God's word. I found peace and forgiveness when I was led to the Lord by other Christians."
pepper: "There seems to be no answer about how an atheist decides what is right and wrong."
Me: "But I said: Upon honest reflection you came to realize that certain things were good and others were bad. ... I'm claiming to do essentially the same, and that I have similar justification for trusting that I have found a true virtue."
Insofar as you lament the lack of an answer to how an atheist decides right and wrong -- you have also lacked to answer the question yourself.
We decide in the same way, if you think you have more justification for deciding what is right and wrong, you have yet to mention it. I gave exactly as much of an answer as you have given about how you have decided what is right and wrong.
Since I doubt this makes sense to you, let me anticipate a possible future interaction.
If I wrote:
Me: "There seems to be no answer to how a theist decides what is right and wrong."
pepper: "But I said: I decide right from wrong by being an eye witness to my own life. I did a lot of wrong, according to God's word. I found peace and forgiveness when I was led to the Lord by other Christians."
pepper: "There seems to be no answer about how an atheist decides what is right and wrong."
Me: "But I said: Upon honest reflection you came to realize that certain things were good and others were bad. ... I'm claiming to do essentially the same, and that I have similar justification for trusting that I have found a true virtue."
Insofar as you lament the lack of an answer to how an atheist decides right and wrong -- you have also lacked to answer the question yourself.
--ConverseAtheist
18.November 05,2009, 2:42AM
lpepperw - "There seems to be no answer about how an atheist decides what is right and wrong."
I would hazard a guess that it is not much different from how you decide what is right and wrong during the daily routine of your life. Unless I am mistaken, you don't have a special book that tells you the correct answer for every moral dilemma that could possibly arise. Even the Bible requires a great deal of interpretation as well as acceptance and rejection. Right and Wrong are not 'things' that are out there in the world for us to discover anymore than are laws or manners. Really think about for a moment or two how you make your own moral decisions. Unless you have a direct hotline to God, you are not an automaton blindly following the moral dictates of a supernatural being. You, like everyone else (atheist and theist), bring a number of things to the table when make a moral decision: your biological predispositions as a member of homo sapiens, your genetics, your culture, your past experiences, and your own capacity for rational evaluation. There is no single answer for 'how somebody decides right from won' - it is a combination of all of these things.
I would hazard a guess that it is not much different from how you decide what is right and wrong during the daily routine of your life. Unless I am mistaken, you don't have a special book that tells you the correct answer for every moral dilemma that could possibly arise. Even the Bible requires a great deal of interpretation as well as acceptance and rejection. Right and Wrong are not 'things' that are out there in the world for us to discover anymore than are laws or manners. Really think about for a moment or two how you make your own moral decisions. Unless you have a direct hotline to God, you are not an automaton blindly following the moral dictates of a supernatural being. You, like everyone else (atheist and theist), bring a number of things to the table when make a moral decision: your biological predispositions as a member of homo sapiens, your genetics, your culture, your past experiences, and your own capacity for rational evaluation. There is no single answer for 'how somebody decides right from won' - it is a combination of all of these things.
--AnAtheist.Net
19.November 05,2009, 2:06AM
CA,
When you wrote "I'm claiming to do essentially the same, and that I have similar justification for trusting that I have found a true virtue. Being a theist grants you no special privilege for discovering what is truly good."
I thought you were talking about yourself. "you" meant me. Sorry about that.
There seems to be no answer about how an atheist decides what is right and
wrong.
When you wrote "I'm claiming to do essentially the same, and that I have similar justification for trusting that I have found a true virtue. Being a theist grants you no special privilege for discovering what is truly good."
I thought you were talking about yourself. "you" meant me. Sorry about that.
There seems to be no answer about how an atheist decides what is right and
wrong.
--lpepperw
20.November 05,2009, 1:31AM
Re: lpepperw:
ConverseAtheist is shortened (because of username length limits) for Conversational Atheist -- which is also the name of my website: http://conversationalatheist.com
Not sure how you came to think that I am a theist...
ConverseAtheist is shortened (because of username length limits) for Conversational Atheist -- which is also the name of my website: http://conversationalatheist.com
Not sure how you came to think that I am a theist...
--ConverseAtheist
21.November 04,2009, 4:04PM
socerer, I read the posts. I still am curious about an atheists source
for right and wrong. I can understand growing up in a country where the
laws reflect right and wrong, good and evil. (not always applied well)
The atheist doesn't believe in God, but has not lived in a lawless society.
On the other hand, a father runs over his daughter and kills her because
she has become too "western" in his own religion. Honor-killing is a virtue
to him. If an atheist tried to exercise free-speech at Tehran University,
the outcome would not be good. So I still wonder how an atheist decides
what is right and wrong. Is Alex the atheist a true atheist?
ConverseAtheist claims to be a theist, I think, so the atheist question
about right and wrong would not apply to CA. Although I am confused about CA.
I didn't know if the Converse part of your name reflected your choice of
shoe brand (nike, addidas, converse) or had a deeper meaning, so I looked
it up and I guess you are saying you are the opposite of an atheist???
(I told you RD was smarter then me)
for right and wrong. I can understand growing up in a country where the
laws reflect right and wrong, good and evil. (not always applied well)
The atheist doesn't believe in God, but has not lived in a lawless society.
On the other hand, a father runs over his daughter and kills her because
she has become too "western" in his own religion. Honor-killing is a virtue
to him. If an atheist tried to exercise free-speech at Tehran University,
the outcome would not be good. So I still wonder how an atheist decides
what is right and wrong. Is Alex the atheist a true atheist?
ConverseAtheist claims to be a theist, I think, so the atheist question
about right and wrong would not apply to CA. Although I am confused about CA.
I didn't know if the Converse part of your name reflected your choice of
shoe brand (nike, addidas, converse) or had a deeper meaning, so I looked
it up and I guess you are saying you are the opposite of an atheist???
(I told you RD was smarter then me)
--lpepperw
22.November 04,2009, 2:38PM
RD: "How can you be so sure that people could gain so many beliefs in this immediate way and not allow that people may also have beliefs about God in a properly basic way?"
This is why I asked if theological beliefs are "objective claims about external reality" -- because those are somewhat easier to argue about.
If a person wants to claim that he has a new way of gaining true knowledge about the external world -- but never any knowledge that is verifiable; well, as far as I can tell, he's fooling himself.
A person, for example, who claims that God regularly talks to him is making a bold claim -- he has a two way conversation with an infinite knowledge source. Is it possible that they actually are? Sure, but every person that I've talked to who has claimed this cannot, ever, ask God for trivially verifiable knowledge that he does not already have inside his head. Or rather, he can ask God (although he rarely even tries) but God never answers him.
This is completely analogous to a person with the sense of sight coming into a tribe where everyone is born blind from birth. It would be simple for the person to claim what he can do with this new way of "knowing about the external world" -- and equally simple for him to demonstrate this ability to even those without the sense of sight.
RD: "Here's one of your standard dilemmas as applied to moral intuition: Jacques morally intuits that it is good to lie in his self-interest. What can we say to him?"
I'd say his intuition is almost certainly wrong -- but it is not about external reality; and that can make it much harder to argue about. In general, I find people either claim *there is no such thing as objective right and wrong*; or they accept moral claims, and I find that we tend to agree on most extreme moral issues such: as it is Never Ever morally right to Bludgeon Babies for entertainment. As for the slightly less obvious cases, I could try to argue via virtue ethics, and a few other modes of thought, but it's a hard case to argue in general. And, I normally don't argue those things.
This is why I asked if theological beliefs are "objective claims about external reality" -- because those are somewhat easier to argue about.
If a person wants to claim that he has a new way of gaining true knowledge about the external world -- but never any knowledge that is verifiable; well, as far as I can tell, he's fooling himself.
A person, for example, who claims that God regularly talks to him is making a bold claim -- he has a two way conversation with an infinite knowledge source. Is it possible that they actually are? Sure, but every person that I've talked to who has claimed this cannot, ever, ask God for trivially verifiable knowledge that he does not already have inside his head. Or rather, he can ask God (although he rarely even tries) but God never answers him.
This is completely analogous to a person with the sense of sight coming into a tribe where everyone is born blind from birth. It would be simple for the person to claim what he can do with this new way of "knowing about the external world" -- and equally simple for him to demonstrate this ability to even those without the sense of sight.
RD: "Here's one of your standard dilemmas as applied to moral intuition: Jacques morally intuits that it is good to lie in his self-interest. What can we say to him?"
I'd say his intuition is almost certainly wrong -- but it is not about external reality; and that can make it much harder to argue about. In general, I find people either claim *there is no such thing as objective right and wrong*; or they accept moral claims, and I find that we tend to agree on most extreme moral issues such: as it is Never Ever morally right to Bludgeon Babies for entertainment. As for the slightly less obvious cases, I could try to argue via virtue ethics, and a few other modes of thought, but it's a hard case to argue in general. And, I normally don't argue those things.
--ConverseAtheist
23.November 04,2009, 9:14AM
Lpepperw - We just had a long discussion on this very blog about the question of "How do you decide right from wrong?" Read the comments on this post, and the next three posts:
www.christianpost.com/blogs/tentativeapologist/2009/10/the-moral-of-the-story-on-the-relativity-of-strangeness-part-2-15/index.html
www.christianpost.com/blogs/tentativeapologist/2009/10/the-moral-of-the-story-on-the-relativity-of-strangeness-part-2-15/index.html
--sorceror
24.November 04,2009, 8:30AM
CA,
One correction to your statement. "I would say that mathematical truths are necessarily true independent of "worlds"; they are definitely not true 'in worlds'"
I am not sure what you are thinking a possible world is, but it merely refers to a maximal state of affairs. The actual world (meaning all that exists, not just in our cosmos, but EVERYTHING including other universes, the supernature, the whole kit and kaboodle) is one possible world. There is also a possible world where I died in 1986 after being hit by Billy Joel's tour bus. And there is a possible world in which Starbucks started selling Ben and Jerry's ice cream nationwide in 1999. To say that something is true in all possible worlds does not make it dependent but rather establishes that it is independent of all contingencies.
I like what I see in your epistemology. But the relativity of strangeness certainly kicks in here. How can you be so sure that people could gain so many beliefs in this immediate way and not allow that people may also have beliefs about God in a properly basic way?
Here's one of your standard dilemmas as applied to moral intuition: Jacques morally intuits that it is good to lie in his self-interest. What can we say to him?
One correction to your statement. "I would say that mathematical truths are necessarily true independent of "worlds"; they are definitely not true 'in worlds'"
I am not sure what you are thinking a possible world is, but it merely refers to a maximal state of affairs. The actual world (meaning all that exists, not just in our cosmos, but EVERYTHING including other universes, the supernature, the whole kit and kaboodle) is one possible world. There is also a possible world where I died in 1986 after being hit by Billy Joel's tour bus. And there is a possible world in which Starbucks started selling Ben and Jerry's ice cream nationwide in 1999. To say that something is true in all possible worlds does not make it dependent but rather establishes that it is independent of all contingencies.
I like what I see in your epistemology. But the relativity of strangeness certainly kicks in here. How can you be so sure that people could gain so many beliefs in this immediate way and not allow that people may also have beliefs about God in a properly basic way?
Here's one of your standard dilemmas as applied to moral intuition: Jacques morally intuits that it is good to lie in his self-interest. What can we say to him?
--RD Rauser
25.November 04,2009, 5:49AM
RD: "Is this your view? It certainly is mine."
Yes, and I know it may get me in trouble w/ my fellow atheists.
RD: "But how do you decide which sources of belief produce immediate, properly basic knowledge and which not?"
This gets trickier -- and might make everyone upset with me.
My choice of vocabulary might be a stumbling block for me and for anyone reading, but I hope I can give a general idea.
I would say that "external reality" is a realm that is a subset of "objective facts".
Is 2 + 2 = 4 true in what I'm calling "external reality"? No, it simply isn't in the domain of "external reality".
Is "2+2=4" an objective fact? Yes.
When a child first learns of negative numbers, they often protest, "but you can't have -3 ... it isn't a real number!" They are right in their example, but wrong to protest. Does math describe "external reality" if you properly account and label things such that every thing in the 'real world' has an unambiguous analogue in the 'math realm'? Of course.
Mathematical intuition can lead you to some true conclusions. So can logical and rational intuition. They can also lead to false conclusions, but are often correctable.
I would say similar words for morals and virtues.
Now -- how far does intuition get you in external reality? -- I'd suspect that RD and I would disagree here, and I'm not sure that the difference is semantic. For example, RD has said that mathematical truths are necessarily true in all possible worlds. I would say that mathematical truths are necessarily true independent of "worlds"; they are definitely not true 'in worlds'.
What do warm fuzzy feelings tell you about the external world? Not much as far as I can tell. They can tell you a great deal about your internal world.
If I feel sad when I watch Bambi, does that imply that there is a Bambi's mom who dies in the real world? No. Does it make my feelings any less real? No. This kind of thinking is what leads me to be incredulous when RD says that one can come to know objective facts about external reality from a "God sense" -- which as far as I can tell is a warm-fuzzy-feeling that a person gets when he thinks to himself, "God loves me." This tells you a bit about yourself; but not much about external reality.
All right, I've given enough rope to hang myself; I'll leave this here for now.
Yes, and I know it may get me in trouble w/ my fellow atheists.
RD: "But how do you decide which sources of belief produce immediate, properly basic knowledge and which not?"
This gets trickier -- and might make everyone upset with me.
My choice of vocabulary might be a stumbling block for me and for anyone reading, but I hope I can give a general idea.
I would say that "external reality" is a realm that is a subset of "objective facts".
Is 2 + 2 = 4 true in what I'm calling "external reality"? No, it simply isn't in the domain of "external reality".
Is "2+2=4" an objective fact? Yes.
When a child first learns of negative numbers, they often protest, "but you can't have -3 ... it isn't a real number!" They are right in their example, but wrong to protest. Does math describe "external reality" if you properly account and label things such that every thing in the 'real world' has an unambiguous analogue in the 'math realm'? Of course.
Mathematical intuition can lead you to some true conclusions. So can logical and rational intuition. They can also lead to false conclusions, but are often correctable.
I would say similar words for morals and virtues.
Now -- how far does intuition get you in external reality? -- I'd suspect that RD and I would disagree here, and I'm not sure that the difference is semantic. For example, RD has said that mathematical truths are necessarily true in all possible worlds. I would say that mathematical truths are necessarily true independent of "worlds"; they are definitely not true 'in worlds'.
What do warm fuzzy feelings tell you about the external world? Not much as far as I can tell. They can tell you a great deal about your internal world.
If I feel sad when I watch Bambi, does that imply that there is a Bambi's mom who dies in the real world? No. Does it make my feelings any less real? No. This kind of thinking is what leads me to be incredulous when RD says that one can come to know objective facts about external reality from a "God sense" -- which as far as I can tell is a warm-fuzzy-feeling that a person gets when he thinks to himself, "God loves me." This tells you a bit about yourself; but not much about external reality.
All right, I've given enough rope to hang myself; I'll leave this here for now.
--ConverseAtheist
26.November 04,2009, 3:45AM
On reflection, if the question is, 'would a theist be more likely to commit an atrocity than an atheist?' perhaps the most logical answer would be 'Yes!' Why? There are a whole range of supporting beliefs around theism (e.g. God is alive, god is active in the human experience, god is in control, etc...) that would not be shared by an atheist (it is unlikely they would be replaced by other corresponding or complementary beliefs). These beliefs (properly basic?) would stimulate actions / behaviours and undoubtedly would lead to events described as atrocious by some are all others witness to them. Certainly atheists could commit the same acts but they might not have the same propensity for them as the motivation does not exist. This could certainly apply to Christians as a member of the set of theists yet there is also the potential for authentic Christian beliefs to mitigate against such behaviour on their behalf. This acorn is still developing ...
--Crannog
27.November 04,2009, 2:28AM
*At the very least, our definition of Christian would include the conviction that God is real and may command you directly to action.*
It is not a belief in God that make one a Christian. To be a Christian is to be a disciple of Jesus with all that implies. I grant, 'Impossible' is a strong word and inappropriate--perhaps 'much more improbable' is better in this instance
It is not a belief in God that make one a Christian. To be a Christian is to be a disciple of Jesus with all that implies. I grant, 'Impossible' is a strong word and inappropriate--perhaps 'much more improbable' is better in this instance
--Crannog
28.November 03,2009, 11:56PM
lpepperw: "I decide right from wrong by being an eye witness to my own life. I did a lot of wrong, according to God's word. I found peace and forgiveness when I was led to the Lord by other Christians."
All right, fair enough. Upon honest reflection you came to realize that certain things were good and others were bad. Fine. I'm claiming to do essentially the same, and that I have similar justification for trusting that I have found a true virtue. Being a theist grants you no special privilege for discovering what is truly good.
For my own conception, I would rephrase your last sentence with a close parallel to what Aristotle said, "A virtuous life is its own reward."
All right, fair enough. Upon honest reflection you came to realize that certain things were good and others were bad. Fine. I'm claiming to do essentially the same, and that I have similar justification for trusting that I have found a true virtue. Being a theist grants you no special privilege for discovering what is truly good.
For my own conception, I would rephrase your last sentence with a close parallel to what Aristotle said, "A virtuous life is its own reward."
--ConverseAtheist
29.November 03,2009, 9:22PM
CA, You still haven't answered the question of right and wrong.
I have no desire to "blow you out of the water." just questions and observations.
I certainly am not as well studied as RD. What is "equal justification with a theist,"? If you are an atheist, why would that matter?
I decide right from wrong by being an eye witness to my own life. I did
a lot of wrong, according to God's word. I found peace and forgiveness when
I was led to the Lord by other Christians. Since then it is a lifelong pursuit of Bible study, prayer and trial and error. I believe man needs to be
redeemed.
My observation of atheists, especially, young, American atheists is that
they are angry people, who don't like Christianity especially..there doesn't
seem to be the same zeal against Islam.
I get a kick out of "atheists" who drive around in bumper stickered, fuel
efficient cars. I mean, why bother? If you don't believe in God, or eternity
go for the gusto! Conquer your enemies, aquire land and wealth. Drive a
Hummer! If all you have is your short lifespan and five senses, use them
to the max!
I have no desire to "blow you out of the water." just questions and observations.
I certainly am not as well studied as RD. What is "equal justification with a theist,"? If you are an atheist, why would that matter?
I decide right from wrong by being an eye witness to my own life. I did
a lot of wrong, according to God's word. I found peace and forgiveness when
I was led to the Lord by other Christians. Since then it is a lifelong pursuit of Bible study, prayer and trial and error. I believe man needs to be
redeemed.
My observation of atheists, especially, young, American atheists is that
they are angry people, who don't like Christianity especially..there doesn't
seem to be the same zeal against Islam.
I get a kick out of "atheists" who drive around in bumper stickered, fuel
efficient cars. I mean, why bother? If you don't believe in God, or eternity
go for the gusto! Conquer your enemies, aquire land and wealth. Drive a
Hummer! If all you have is your short lifespan and five senses, use them
to the max!
--lpepperw
30.November 03,2009, 8:20PM
CA,
"How do I distinguish red from blue? I use my sense of sight (plus some added cultural info like, that is called 'red' and that 'blue). How do I decide right from wrong? I use my innate moral sense (plus some rational intuition, etc)."
Is this your view? It certainly is mine. But how do you decide which sources of belief produce immediate, properly basic knowledge and which not?
"How do I distinguish red from blue? I use my sense of sight (plus some added cultural info like, that is called 'red' and that 'blue). How do I decide right from wrong? I use my innate moral sense (plus some rational intuition, etc)."
Is this your view? It certainly is mine. But how do you decide which sources of belief produce immediate, properly basic knowledge and which not?
--RD Rauser
31.November 03,2009, 8:05PM
lpepperw: "I saw your repsonse, but you haven't answered yet. How do you decide right from wrong?"
How do I distinguish red from blue? I use my sense of sight (plus some added cultural info like, that is called 'red' and that 'blue). How do I decide right from wrong? I use my innate moral sense (plus some rational intuition, etc).
Since I only claimed equal justification with a theist, you have the chance to blow me out of the water. How do you decide right from wrong? How did you decide that God was good, and Satan was evil, just to start things off with the basics?
How do I distinguish red from blue? I use my sense of sight (plus some added cultural info like, that is called 'red' and that 'blue). How do I decide right from wrong? I use my innate moral sense (plus some rational intuition, etc).
Since I only claimed equal justification with a theist, you have the chance to blow me out of the water. How do you decide right from wrong? How did you decide that God was good, and Satan was evil, just to start things off with the basics?
--ConverseAtheist
32.November 03,2009, 7:56PM
lpepperw: "The UN is not a great example of human rights. It may say great things but it is run by some brutal dictators with no accountability."
And yet the UN, troubled and awful as it is, has a clear stance against slavery as an institution.
Contrast this with the verse from the letter of Paul to Philemon who asks Philemon to consider changing the status of Onesimus.
Which is... at best a clear stance that... Paul thinks that, perhaps this one slave, Onesimus (to whom Paul now considers himself a father) should (owner permitting) be granted his freedom.
As terrible a moral institution you think the UN is -- which I won't contest in the slightest -- too bad God's book cannot measure up to even that lowly standard!
And yet the UN, troubled and awful as it is, has a clear stance against slavery as an institution.
Contrast this with the verse from the letter of Paul to Philemon who asks Philemon to consider changing the status of Onesimus.
Which is... at best a clear stance that... Paul thinks that, perhaps this one slave, Onesimus (to whom Paul now considers himself a father) should (owner permitting) be granted his freedom.
As terrible a moral institution you think the UN is -- which I won't contest in the slightest -- too bad God's book cannot measure up to even that lowly standard!
--ConverseAtheist
33.November 03,2009, 7:17PM
CA,
The paper is the first PDF here:
http://www.randalrauser.com/index.php?pr=Academic_Articles
The paper is the first PDF here:
http://www.randalrauser.com/index.php?pr=Academic_Articles
--RD Rauser
34.November 03,2009, 6:44PM
C-A
"The book of Onesimus (Philemon) is the book that is brought forward most often—and rightly, I think—to show that Paul was sowing the seeds to explode the whole situation of slavery. Onesimus himself was a slave when he got converted. Paul sent him back to Philemon who had been his master, and he said, "I am sending him back as a brother. Honor him." I think that kind of spiritual dynamic is intended to explode the system."
http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/AskPastorJohn/ByTopic/101/2761_Why_did_God_permit_slavery/
"The book of Onesimus (Philemon) is the book that is brought forward most often—and rightly, I think—to show that Paul was sowing the seeds to explode the whole situation of slavery. Onesimus himself was a slave when he got converted. Paul sent him back to Philemon who had been his master, and he said, "I am sending him back as a brother. Honor him." I think that kind of spiritual dynamic is intended to explode the system."
http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/AskPastorJohn/ByTopic/101/2761_Why_did_God_permit_slavery/
--lpepperw
35.November 03,2009, 6:31PM
converseathiest, you said.
"Where do you get your notion that slavery is wrong if not the UN? "
Really, the UN? That is funny. The UN was started in 1942. Battle of
Gettysburg was in 1863. (51,000 dead) Lincoln's famous speech
"Four score and seven years ago, our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation: conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal"
John Newton wrote "Amazing Grace" in 1772, after being a slave trader and then
repenting.
The UN is not a great example of human rights. It may say great things
but it is run by some brutal dictators with no accountability.
"In the field of human rights this was most evident by the discrediting of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights (UNCHR). A succession of human rights-abusing governments won seats on the UNCHR, including Sudan, Nepal, Cuba, Zimbabwe, and Saudi Arabia."
I saw your repsonse, but you haven't answered yet. How do you decide
right from wrong?
"Where do you get your notion that slavery is wrong if not the UN? "
Really, the UN? That is funny. The UN was started in 1942. Battle of
Gettysburg was in 1863. (51,000 dead) Lincoln's famous speech
"Four score and seven years ago, our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation: conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal"
John Newton wrote "Amazing Grace" in 1772, after being a slave trader and then
repenting.
The UN is not a great example of human rights. It may say great things
but it is run by some brutal dictators with no accountability.
"In the field of human rights this was most evident by the discrediting of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights (UNCHR). A succession of human rights-abusing governments won seats on the UNCHR, including Sudan, Nepal, Cuba, Zimbabwe, and Saudi Arabia."
I saw your repsonse, but you haven't answered yet. How do you decide
right from wrong?
--lpepperw
36.November 03,2009, 6:27PM
"if we make it specific enough I suggest it would be impossible for ‘Christians’ to commit more atrocities"
If the reason for that is that anyone actually committing these atrocities would almost automatically be excluded from being a 'Christian' this renders the question meaningless. Even if you assume the most exclusivist definition of 'true' christians, for this analysis you would still need to include the failed, the fallen, the 'bad' self-professed christians. Furthermore, you need to take into account the premise of RD's hypothesis, that the murder comes after the conviction that God wants him to commit murder. This requires a higher commitment to faith than the apatheist-christian-in-name-only you described. At the very least, our definition of Christian would include the conviction that God is real and may command you directly to action.
If the reason for that is that anyone actually committing these atrocities would almost automatically be excluded from being a 'Christian' this renders the question meaningless. Even if you assume the most exclusivist definition of 'true' christians, for this analysis you would still need to include the failed, the fallen, the 'bad' self-professed christians. Furthermore, you need to take into account the premise of RD's hypothesis, that the murder comes after the conviction that God wants him to commit murder. This requires a higher commitment to faith than the apatheist-christian-in-name-only you described. At the very least, our definition of Christian would include the conviction that God is real and may command you directly to action.
--Cafeeine
37.November 03,2009, 5:41PM
On the 'Defining a Christian' issue, check out the other blog on 'Continuing Decline of the Church in America: Why?' et al
--Crannog
38.November 03,2009, 5:37PM
Perhaps “Atheist but I wouldn’t step out of the way of a freight train” might be easier to say and understand …
I’m afraid I’d need to see the empirical evidence when it comes to proving a Christian is more likely to commit an atrocity than an atheist … in this study we’d first have to define just what it means to be Christian. How do you define a Christian? Is a person who says they are a Christian or a person who meets some other objective definition that looks at both professed ideology AND associated supporting behaviour. For example, a person who is walks into church on a Sunday morning because they feel they have an obligation to someone else to be there, who knows the rituals and performs on cue, but who leaves the church and breaks every moral law of the church in the following week (including murder) … is that person a Christian? I would say their propensity for destructive behaviour has no relation to their self-affixed (but essentially meaningless) label. We could ask if the ‘Kindergarten’ Christians are truly Christians as well. Of course we could say this set ‘Christian’ includes anyone not assigned to a non-Christian set. If we make the label vague enough then the answer probably would be less—if we make it specific enough I suggest it would be impossible for ‘Christians’ to commit more atrocities than atheists
I’m afraid I’d need to see the empirical evidence when it comes to proving a Christian is more likely to commit an atrocity than an atheist … in this study we’d first have to define just what it means to be Christian. How do you define a Christian? Is a person who says they are a Christian or a person who meets some other objective definition that looks at both professed ideology AND associated supporting behaviour. For example, a person who is walks into church on a Sunday morning because they feel they have an obligation to someone else to be there, who knows the rituals and performs on cue, but who leaves the church and breaks every moral law of the church in the following week (including murder) … is that person a Christian? I would say their propensity for destructive behaviour has no relation to their self-affixed (but essentially meaningless) label. We could ask if the ‘Kindergarten’ Christians are truly Christians as well. Of course we could say this set ‘Christian’ includes anyone not assigned to a non-Christian set. If we make the label vague enough then the answer probably would be less—if we make it specific enough I suggest it would be impossible for ‘Christians’ to commit more atrocities than atheists
--Crannog
39.November 03,2009, 5:03PM
RD: "Personally I don't believe that God would do this. (I have argued the point at length here and in an academic journal article.)"
I tried to find this academic journal article, could you tell me the title/journal of your article?
I tried to find this academic journal article, could you tell me the title/journal of your article?
--ConverseAtheist
40.November 03,2009, 4:15PM
lpepperw: "I asked on another RD blog, what is the basis for an atheists belief in morals?"
And you got a response, and you responded to my response, so you definitely saw it.
"I say that a "good" atheist is borrowing from the Judeo-Christian ethics taught in the Bible and passed on through the centuries."
I say that good Christians who have figured out that slavery is immoral have finally improved upon the morality taught in the Bible. God was so bad at figuring out basic morality, that He never once declared that slavery was wrong. He never once declared it immoral.
Contrast this with the fully human created: UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 4 -- "No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms."
Where do you get your notion that slavery is wrong if not the UN? Very basic question.
And you got a response, and you responded to my response, so you definitely saw it.
"I say that a "good" atheist is borrowing from the Judeo-Christian ethics taught in the Bible and passed on through the centuries."
I say that good Christians who have figured out that slavery is immoral have finally improved upon the morality taught in the Bible. God was so bad at figuring out basic morality, that He never once declared that slavery was wrong. He never once declared it immoral.
Contrast this with the fully human created: UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 4 -- "No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms."
Where do you get your notion that slavery is wrong if not the UN? Very basic question.
--ConverseAtheist
41.November 03,2009, 3:10PM
I was joking, but, I have never read the Atheist Post if there is one!
I asked on another RD blog, what is the basis for an atheists belief in
morals? I say that a "good" atheist is borrowing from the Judeo-Christian
ethics taught in the Bible and passed on through the centuries. Where do
you get your conscience from? Very basic question.
I asked on another RD blog, what is the basis for an atheists belief in
morals? I say that a "good" atheist is borrowing from the Judeo-Christian
ethics taught in the Bible and passed on through the centuries. Where do
you get your conscience from? Very basic question.
--lpepperw
42.November 03,2009, 1:56PM
sorceror,
If our biggest disagreement at the end of the day is the adequacy of the term "protest atheist" then we're not doing too bad. But I would say that "Atheist but I wouldn't worship a god if there were one" is rather cumbersome.
If our biggest disagreement at the end of the day is the adequacy of the term "protest atheist" then we're not doing too bad. But I would say that "Atheist but I wouldn't worship a god if there were one" is rather cumbersome.
--RD Rauser
43.November 03,2009, 1:52PM
Rauser - Hold it. Most recently you wrote that: The protest atheist agrees with atheism simpliciter in saying not-P where "P" is "God exists", but adds that even if God could be shown to exist, one would still refuse to recognize God as a being worthy of worship.
But you also said that "Protest atheism is consistent with there being gods".
If a "protest atheist" asserts that God doesn't exist, that's not "consistent with there being gods". A "protest atheist" would be an atheist - someone who doesn't think that there are gods - who also thinks that gods would be unworthy of worship.
If it were shown to them that a god existed, they would cease to be atheists. They might then become heretics or some such, but they would ipso facto no longer be atheists.
But you also said that "Protest atheism is consistent with there being gods".
If a "protest atheist" asserts that God doesn't exist, that's not "consistent with there being gods". A "protest atheist" would be an atheist - someone who doesn't think that there are gods - who also thinks that gods would be unworthy of worship.
If it were shown to them that a god existed, they would cease to be atheists. They might then become heretics or some such, but they would ipso facto no longer be atheists.
--sorceror
44.November 03,2009, 1:51PM
Regarding protest atheism, you're using it in the way that several people (including Christopher Hitchens) use anti-theism. That is, regardless of the question of god's existence, they claim opposition to a god's character as it is portrayed through its scriptures and believers. I think your term is misleading, as you can consider a god unworthy of worship even as you believe he exists.
--Cafeeine
45.November 03,2009, 1:01PM
sorceror,
The protest atheist agrees with atheism simpliciter in saying not-P where "P" is "God exists", but adds that even if God could be shown to exist, one would still refuse to recognize God as a being worthy of worship. If you want to protest against protest atheism it's fine with me, but take it up with Morgentaler.
The protest atheist agrees with atheism simpliciter in saying not-P where "P" is "God exists", but adds that even if God could be shown to exist, one would still refuse to recognize God as a being worthy of worship. If you want to protest against protest atheism it's fine with me, but take it up with Morgentaler.
--RD Rauser
46.November 03,2009, 11:32AM
In the Q&A Morgentaler was asked by a student this question: if it could be shown to you that there is a God would you bow to him? Morgentaler answered: No.
So there are protest atheists.
Um, wait a sec, hold up. Not "bowing" to a God isn't the same thing as not believing in one. A "Satanist" would fit the definition of not bowing to God, but wouldn't be an atheist either, right?
A "protest atheist" is a contradiction in terms. Believing, not believing, and disbelieving are logically and practically distinct from 'submitting'.
So there are protest atheists.
Um, wait a sec, hold up. Not "bowing" to a God isn't the same thing as not believing in one. A "Satanist" would fit the definition of not bowing to God, but wouldn't be an atheist either, right?
A "protest atheist" is a contradiction in terms. Believing, not believing, and disbelieving are logically and practically distinct from 'submitting'.
--sorceror
47.November 03,2009, 10:03AM
lpepperw,
Well I read Richard Dawkins so I guess it's possible. :)
Well I read Richard Dawkins so I guess it's possible. :)
--RD Rauser
48.November 03,2009, 10:01AM
PhillyChief,
"both theist and atheist are agnostics for neither knows if there are any gods."
Before we decide whether something exists, we define it. Philosophers of religion (theistic, atheistic and otherwise) have no problem debating the existence of God. Some believe they know God exists, others that they know God does not exist. I wonder how you could stipulate magisterially that neither could know?
"Clearly if one had knowledge of a god's existence, whether he chose to obey it or not, he wouldn't be an atheist anymore, right? That smells of the typical theist straw man for atheists as those who simply refuse to obey it. I can honestly say I have never met one of those fictional beings."
Well the most famous one was fictional: Ivan in "The Brothers Karamazov". But there are many others which leads me to conclude that you should get out more. For one example, I saw a 1994 debate between William Lane Craig and atheist Henry Morgentaler. In the Q&A Morgentaler was asked by a student this question: if it could be shown to you that there is a God would you bow to him? Morgentaler answered: No.
So there are protest atheists. They are people who probably don't believe in the existence of God but who say that even if God did exist, they would not submit to him.
"both theist and atheist are agnostics for neither knows if there are any gods."
Before we decide whether something exists, we define it. Philosophers of religion (theistic, atheistic and otherwise) have no problem debating the existence of God. Some believe they know God exists, others that they know God does not exist. I wonder how you could stipulate magisterially that neither could know?
"Clearly if one had knowledge of a god's existence, whether he chose to obey it or not, he wouldn't be an atheist anymore, right? That smells of the typical theist straw man for atheists as those who simply refuse to obey it. I can honestly say I have never met one of those fictional beings."
Well the most famous one was fictional: Ivan in "The Brothers Karamazov". But there are many others which leads me to conclude that you should get out more. For one example, I saw a 1994 debate between William Lane Craig and atheist Henry Morgentaler. In the Q&A Morgentaler was asked by a student this question: if it could be shown to you that there is a God would you bow to him? Morgentaler answered: No.
So there are protest atheists. They are people who probably don't believe in the existence of God but who say that even if God did exist, they would not submit to him.
--RD Rauser
49.November 03,2009, 8:22AM
Rauser - I hope you're not suggesting that the one salient difference between the England of 700 years ago and today to explain the differing murder rates is less formal practice of religion? Because that would be a staggeringly simplistic claim...
You asked how one would "begin to make a case", and I offered an outline of such a case with a suggestive datapoint or two. I didn't plan on developing an entire doctoral thesis in a comment. :->
(However, it's worth pointing out that you implicitly admit that there are a whole lot of factors that might contribute to moral behavior; religion is hardly the sole determinant. I contend it need not even be a critical factor.)
You asked how one would "begin to make a case", and I offered an outline of such a case with a suggestive datapoint or two. I didn't plan on developing an entire doctoral thesis in a comment. :->
(However, it's worth pointing out that you implicitly admit that there are a whole lot of factors that might contribute to moral behavior; religion is hardly the sole determinant. I contend it need not even be a critical factor.)
--sorceror
50.November 03,2009, 4:25AM
A correction: In my previous comment, I wrote "all of Christian thought supports him committing that murder.". That is a sweeping statement, and I realized that as I read it again. I realize there may be exceptions, so take that into account.
--Cafeeine
51.November 03,2009, 4:21AM
RD,
I'll grant your point that formal institutions tend to get tarred by the acts of its members. However the point could well have been made with a church-going Christian and a non-denominational solitary self-professed Christian, or even yet between two soccer hooligans, one alone and one wearing the colors of a fan club.
However my analysis was more pertinent to the main question: "are Christian beliefs more likely than atheist beliefs to produce people who perform heinous actions?"
I would say yes, simply because Christian beliefs encompass the element of faith, i.e. uncritical acceptance of things, if they fall under the purview of their religion. Note that it doesn't matter whether a god actually tells Alex to commit a murder, or whether he actually wants to commit a murder, but whether he is convinced that God wants him to. Now this isn't a small barrier, and in most cases it requires an unstable mind to cross it, but once that barrier has been breached, all of Christian thought supports him committing that murder.
Even the story of Abraham, in which you correctly state that he didn't kill Isaac, you ignore the more salient point that he didn't stop on his own, but was halted by the angel. He was perfectly willing to commit filicide in the name of god.
This catalyst to action simply does not exist in atheism. There is no logical way to go from "there isn't any absolute right or wrong" to "I want to kill my wife for money". This presupposes a love of money more than love of the wife, however, if he had a love of money greater than the love for his wife, he would have been predisposed for the murder anyways.
There is a good point to be made on whether people who do evil things and go unpunished, realize after the fact that there is no absolute right and wrong, but that is a different story.
@lpepperw
Apparently so.
I'll grant your point that formal institutions tend to get tarred by the acts of its members. However the point could well have been made with a church-going Christian and a non-denominational solitary self-professed Christian, or even yet between two soccer hooligans, one alone and one wearing the colors of a fan club.
However my analysis was more pertinent to the main question: "are Christian beliefs more likely than atheist beliefs to produce people who perform heinous actions?"
I would say yes, simply because Christian beliefs encompass the element of faith, i.e. uncritical acceptance of things, if they fall under the purview of their religion. Note that it doesn't matter whether a god actually tells Alex to commit a murder, or whether he actually wants to commit a murder, but whether he is convinced that God wants him to. Now this isn't a small barrier, and in most cases it requires an unstable mind to cross it, but once that barrier has been breached, all of Christian thought supports him committing that murder.
Even the story of Abraham, in which you correctly state that he didn't kill Isaac, you ignore the more salient point that he didn't stop on his own, but was halted by the angel. He was perfectly willing to commit filicide in the name of god.
This catalyst to action simply does not exist in atheism. There is no logical way to go from "there isn't any absolute right or wrong" to "I want to kill my wife for money". This presupposes a love of money more than love of the wife, however, if he had a love of money greater than the love for his wife, he would have been predisposed for the murder anyways.
There is a good point to be made on whether people who do evil things and go unpunished, realize after the fact that there is no absolute right and wrong, but that is a different story.
@lpepperw
Apparently so.
--Cafeeine
52.November 03,2009, 1:27AM
Would a true atheist be reading the Christian Post?
lol
Interesting article RD.
lol
Interesting article RD.
--lpepperw
53.November 03,2009, 1:12AM
Rauser,
As long as we're going to get uppity with definitions, agnosticism refers to knowledge; therefore both theist and atheist are agnostics for neither knows if there are any gods. Colloquially, agnosticism is some sort of attempt at neutrality on the god topic, which personally I find silly.
I suppose you like those weak and strong distinctions. Personally, I'd prefer rational and irrational, if by strong you mean one who claims absolute knowledge that there are no gods or one who bases such a claim on faith. That's simply irrational. What I think you're referring to as weak atheism would be the rational atheism, the one which examines the god claims and finds them unwarranted to accept. Your so-called protest atheism makes no sense. Clearly if one had knowledge of a god's existence, whether he chose to obey it or not, he wouldn't be an atheist anymore, right? That smells of the typical theist straw man for atheists as those who simply refuse to obey it. I can honestly say I have never met one of those fictional beings. The rational and irrational atheists? Sure, I've met plenty of each.
But getting back to your article and question, regardless of the flavor of atheism, there is no atheist belief system so your question is still nonsensical.
YouMadeMeSayIt.com
As long as we're going to get uppity with definitions, agnosticism refers to knowledge; therefore both theist and atheist are agnostics for neither knows if there are any gods. Colloquially, agnosticism is some sort of attempt at neutrality on the god topic, which personally I find silly.
I suppose you like those weak and strong distinctions. Personally, I'd prefer rational and irrational, if by strong you mean one who claims absolute knowledge that there are no gods or one who bases such a claim on faith. That's simply irrational. What I think you're referring to as weak atheism would be the rational atheism, the one which examines the god claims and finds them unwarranted to accept. Your so-called protest atheism makes no sense. Clearly if one had knowledge of a god's existence, whether he chose to obey it or not, he wouldn't be an atheist anymore, right? That smells of the typical theist straw man for atheists as those who simply refuse to obey it. I can honestly say I have never met one of those fictional beings. The rational and irrational atheists? Sure, I've met plenty of each.
But getting back to your article and question, regardless of the flavor of atheism, there is no atheist belief system so your question is still nonsensical.
YouMadeMeSayIt.com
--PhillyChief
54.November 02,2009, 9:24PM
Sorceror,
"So there's no evidence that atheists are more likely to engage in 'heinous actions' than the religious, and a fair amount to indicate they aren't."
I hope you're not suggesting that the one salient difference between the England of 700 years ago and today to explain the differing murder rates is less formal practice of religion? Because that would be a staggeringly simplistic claim...
"So there's no evidence that atheists are more likely to engage in 'heinous actions' than the religious, and a fair amount to indicate they aren't."
I hope you're not suggesting that the one salient difference between the England of 700 years ago and today to explain the differing murder rates is less formal practice of religion? Because that would be a staggeringly simplistic claim...
--RD Rauser
55.November 02,2009, 9:23PM
PhillyChief,
You have a rather strange definition of atheism as "simply a refusal to believe in gods." That sounds more like protest atheism rather than either atheism or agnosticism (which is sometimes called weak atheism). Protest atheism is consistent with there being gods, but is found in the agent's refusal to submit to any god that might exist.
You have a rather strange definition of atheism as "simply a refusal to believe in gods." That sounds more like protest atheism rather than either atheism or agnosticism (which is sometimes called weak atheism). Protest atheism is consistent with there being gods, but is found in the agent's refusal to submit to any god that might exist.
--RD Rauser
56.November 02,2009, 9:21PM
Crannog,
I commend the view that Jesus was pacifistic. However, the picture of Christ returning in Revelation is decidedly more violent (Revelation 14 for instance).
I commend the view that Jesus was pacifistic. However, the picture of Christ returning in Revelation is decidedly more violent (Revelation 14 for instance).
--RD Rauser
57.November 02,2009, 9:18PM
Cafeeine,
You point out some legitimate differences in the two cases with an astute analysis. But they are not differences that affect my specific argument. I am only concerned to show that people can commit heinous acts in which either religious or secular beliefs are precipitating factors. And yet it is the nature of formal institutions that they tend to get branded when their adherents commit such acts.
You point out some legitimate differences in the two cases with an astute analysis. But they are not differences that affect my specific argument. I am only concerned to show that people can commit heinous acts in which either religious or secular beliefs are precipitating factors. And yet it is the nature of formal institutions that they tend to get branded when their adherents commit such acts.
--RD Rauser
58.November 02,2009, 6:04PM
converse02,
"How can a Christian praise the actions of Abraham, yet condemn the actions of Alex of the Christian?"
Good question. there are differences of course. For one thing Abraham never carried out the act. It also goes back to one's theory of morality. For a divine command theorist, moral duties are constituted by moral commands. If God commanded Abraham to kill Isaac then that was his moral duty.
Personally I don't believe that God would do this. (I have argued the point at length here and in an academic journal article.) So I don't think anybody could ever have the duty to kill another human being as a sacrificial or pious act.
One final point: for the Christian the interpretive framework of Isaac is the later coming of Christ.
"How can a Christian praise the actions of Abraham, yet condemn the actions of Alex of the Christian?"
Good question. there are differences of course. For one thing Abraham never carried out the act. It also goes back to one's theory of morality. For a divine command theorist, moral duties are constituted by moral commands. If God commanded Abraham to kill Isaac then that was his moral duty.
Personally I don't believe that God would do this. (I have argued the point at length here and in an academic journal article.) So I don't think anybody could ever have the duty to kill another human being as a sacrificial or pious act.
One final point: for the Christian the interpretive framework of Isaac is the later coming of Christ.
--RD Rauser
59.November 02,2009, 6:01PM
Zeus_FTW,
"many Atheists are "negative" Atheists and only lack a belief in a God. This means that Christian beliefs are more likely to produce people to perform heinous actions."
Zeus, you say "negative atheist" I say "agnostic", you say "poTAEto", I say "poTAto".
You asserted that agnostics and atheists would be less likely to perform heinous actions, but you offered no argument to that end. I'd love to see one.
"many Atheists are "negative" Atheists and only lack a belief in a God. This means that Christian beliefs are more likely to produce people to perform heinous actions."
Zeus, you say "negative atheist" I say "agnostic", you say "poTAEto", I say "poTAto".
You asserted that agnostics and atheists would be less likely to perform heinous actions, but you offered no argument to that end. I'd love to see one.
--RD Rauser
60.November 02,2009, 5:59PM
canaanav,
Your comment is apposite, that is if 'apposite' is a word for "bizarrely missing the point".
Your comment is apposite, that is if 'apposite' is a word for "bizarrely missing the point".
--RD Rauser
61.November 02,2009, 9:02AM
Rauser - But the real question is this: are Christian beliefs more likely than atheist beliefs to produce people who perform heinous actions? Certainly atheists have never shown this to be the case, but my question is more basic: how could they ever begin to make a case?
First, by showing that religion is not necessary for moral and ethical behavior, and indeed is either uncorrelated with it or only loosely correlated with it. One of my favorite examples is the fact that the murder rate in England today is one fortieth of the rate it was in the 1300s. And not many people argue that England is more religious now than in the 14th century. Indeed, violence has been decreasing across the board for centuries, and still is, despite a gradual decline in religion across that time. (www.edge.org/3rd_culture/pinker07/pinker07_index.html)
Then there are countries today with vastly less religion than any examples in history... and they're doing all right. Better by many measures than the U.S., even. (scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2009/10/omy_did_you_just_see_that_holy.php) So there's no evidence that atheists are more likely to engage in 'heinous actions' than the religious, and a fair amount to indicate they aren't.
The next step is to point out that believing that objective evidence and human reason are completely inadequate for understanding the world is, well, not a recipe for using science and reason for understanding the world. It will make irrational or contra-rational beliefs more likely.
I don't see religion as a cause of irrationality so much as a catalyst for it. (In chemistry, a catalyst can greatly accelerate a reaction without being consumed in the reaction.) As an example, the early Zionist movement looked to founding a Jewish homeland via land purchased in South America. But, solely for religious reasons, Palestine was picked. And we can see how well that's worked out...
First, by showing that religion is not necessary for moral and ethical behavior, and indeed is either uncorrelated with it or only loosely correlated with it. One of my favorite examples is the fact that the murder rate in England today is one fortieth of the rate it was in the 1300s. And not many people argue that England is more religious now than in the 14th century. Indeed, violence has been decreasing across the board for centuries, and still is, despite a gradual decline in religion across that time. (www.edge.org/3rd_culture/pinker07/pinker07_index.html)
Then there are countries today with vastly less religion than any examples in history... and they're doing all right. Better by many measures than the U.S., even. (scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2009/10/omy_did_you_just_see_that_holy.php) So there's no evidence that atheists are more likely to engage in 'heinous actions' than the religious, and a fair amount to indicate they aren't.
The next step is to point out that believing that objective evidence and human reason are completely inadequate for understanding the world is, well, not a recipe for using science and reason for understanding the world. It will make irrational or contra-rational beliefs more likely.
I don't see religion as a cause of irrationality so much as a catalyst for it. (In chemistry, a catalyst can greatly accelerate a reaction without being consumed in the reaction.) As an example, the early Zionist movement looked to founding a Jewish homeland via land purchased in South America. But, solely for religious reasons, Palestine was picked. And we can see how well that's worked out...
--sorceror
62.November 02,2009, 8:12AM
Well since there is no such things as "atheist beliefs", your question is moot.
There are things an atheist may believe, and they may believe them because they're an atheist, but such things wouldn't be any more examples of atheist beliefs than Christians believing they should have fish on their cars and "under god" should be in the Pledge of Allegiance. Unlike a belief system like Christianity, there is no set of beliefs, no manifesto or bible, for atheism. It's simply a refusal to believe in gods. Why? Well it could be because they know in their heart that there aren't any, Martians told them, they only believe in one god, the tea leaves say there aren't any or the most common reason is the current god claims of the world simply don't hold water.
So I understand what you were intending to do by way of this article, but unfortunately your real or willful ignorance of atheism undermines your intent. Perhaps if left off the question, you might have been more successful.
YouMadeMeSayIt.com
There are things an atheist may believe, and they may believe them because they're an atheist, but such things wouldn't be any more examples of atheist beliefs than Christians believing they should have fish on their cars and "under god" should be in the Pledge of Allegiance. Unlike a belief system like Christianity, there is no set of beliefs, no manifesto or bible, for atheism. It's simply a refusal to believe in gods. Why? Well it could be because they know in their heart that there aren't any, Martians told them, they only believe in one god, the tea leaves say there aren't any or the most common reason is the current god claims of the world simply don't hold water.
So I understand what you were intending to do by way of this article, but unfortunately your real or willful ignorance of atheism undermines your intent. Perhaps if left off the question, you might have been more successful.
YouMadeMeSayIt.com
--PhillyChief
63.November 02,2009, 2:34AM
Further, what's the relevant difference between the justification that a man who comes to believe that God loves him from a religious sense and a man who comes to believe that God wants him to kill someone. Difference in outcomes? Sure.
Is one more justified than the other? Not if you think religious belief is inherently properly basic.
Is one more justified than the other? Not if you think religious belief is inherently properly basic.
--ConverseAtheist
64.November 02,2009, 2:06AM
What if we simply refer to this as “A Tale of Two Madmen,” and go from there. Madman A is a Christian, Madman B is an atheist. In the case of Madman A both he and his religion get pilloried in the press as bad examples to us all whilst Madman B is taken for what he is (as everyone knows murder as he committed it is wrong and he is obviously a nutcase). The question is, “Why would Christianity even be considered as part of the cause?” Are Christians considered pre-disposed to madness because of their beliefs? Does Christianity facilitate murder?
The validity of A wouldn’t stand to any scrutiny and to say yes to B would only demonstrate one’s ignorance of Christianity. Even the pop singer John Mellencamp recognized this in his song “Walk Tall” where he points out “be careful of those who kill in Jesus’ name who don’t believe in killin’ at all’. It doesn’t take much reading of the New Testament to realise that anyone who used (uses) Christ to justify a crusade was (is) only looking to cover for evil motives and was (is) relying heavily on ignorance (on both sides)—whatever the NT does espouse as moral and ethical (and as controversial as those are in this day) murder and ‘physical’ warfare are not among them. Madman A is a Madman and nothing else because he is weighed in the balance of his beliefs and is found wanting.
On the other hand, a realisation, no matter how long it took to arrive at, that there is no master arbitrator of right and wrong and that power and wit can trump any other person’s rights (and beliefs no matter how firmly held) is seen as justifiably insane. Madman B is a Madman and nothing else because he is weighed in the balance of public opinion and is found wanting.
The validity of A wouldn’t stand to any scrutiny and to say yes to B would only demonstrate one’s ignorance of Christianity. Even the pop singer John Mellencamp recognized this in his song “Walk Tall” where he points out “be careful of those who kill in Jesus’ name who don’t believe in killin’ at all’. It doesn’t take much reading of the New Testament to realise that anyone who used (uses) Christ to justify a crusade was (is) only looking to cover for evil motives and was (is) relying heavily on ignorance (on both sides)—whatever the NT does espouse as moral and ethical (and as controversial as those are in this day) murder and ‘physical’ warfare are not among them. Madman A is a Madman and nothing else because he is weighed in the balance of his beliefs and is found wanting.
On the other hand, a realisation, no matter how long it took to arrive at, that there is no master arbitrator of right and wrong and that power and wit can trump any other person’s rights (and beliefs no matter how firmly held) is seen as justifiably insane. Madman B is a Madman and nothing else because he is weighed in the balance of public opinion and is found wanting.
--Crannog
65.November 01,2009, 6:10PM
Zeus_FTW, Randall's use of small-a atheism is actually one of the things he got right in his description. There is no reason to capitalize 'atheist' unless it begins a sentence.
Furthermore, I need to point out the large discrepancy in our two murderers, at least according to the description Randy offers:
All our Christian spouse-killer requires to kill his wife is the conviction that it's God's will. It is not even a requirement for him to previously want to kill his wife. That the apparent will of a deity is to be followed is something that Alex's church may be culpable in promoting, although not necessarily.
Our atheist (I'll call him Xander, just to differentiate them) arrives to the conviction that since there is no God then neither is there any absolute right or wrong. (I'll leave aside how unlikely it for this revelation to arrive out of the blue, as these are conclusions of a long thinking process.)
That still doesn't drive a person to murder.
If he loved his wife before his revelation, he'll love her after it. If he hated her, or was more in love with money beforehand, that would remain undiminished. The realization that morality isn't absolute does not inspire homocidal tendencies, and if you think it does, I'd like to see how you demonstrate that. Therefore, for Xander to react as in your example, he must have had a) lingering doubts about divine absolute morals b) an existing desire to kill his wife for insurance money and c) a final realization that he is not under the auspice of divine morality.
Thing is, while (b) is a necessary and sufficient reason and for this type of murder (a) and (c) are neither necessary nor sufficient
.
Therefore it is quite normal that the role atheism played in the Xander murder is not mentioned, as it is likely inconsequential.
In Alex's murder however, lacking any other reasons the conviction that God desires his wife's death is a necessary and sufficient cause for it.
Furthermore, I need to point out the large discrepancy in our two murderers, at least according to the description Randy offers:
All our Christian spouse-killer requires to kill his wife is the conviction that it's God's will. It is not even a requirement for him to previously want to kill his wife. That the apparent will of a deity is to be followed is something that Alex's church may be culpable in promoting, although not necessarily.
Our atheist (I'll call him Xander, just to differentiate them) arrives to the conviction that since there is no God then neither is there any absolute right or wrong. (I'll leave aside how unlikely it for this revelation to arrive out of the blue, as these are conclusions of a long thinking process.)
That still doesn't drive a person to murder.
If he loved his wife before his revelation, he'll love her after it. If he hated her, or was more in love with money beforehand, that would remain undiminished. The realization that morality isn't absolute does not inspire homocidal tendencies, and if you think it does, I'd like to see how you demonstrate that. Therefore, for Xander to react as in your example, he must have had a) lingering doubts about divine absolute morals b) an existing desire to kill his wife for insurance money and c) a final realization that he is not under the auspice of divine morality.
Thing is, while (b) is a necessary and sufficient reason and for this type of murder (a) and (c) are neither necessary nor sufficient
.
Therefore it is quite normal that the role atheism played in the Xander murder is not mentioned, as it is likely inconsequential.
In Alex's murder however, lacking any other reasons the conviction that God desires his wife's death is a necessary and sufficient cause for it.
--Cafeeine
66.November 01,2009, 2:37PM
In the Bible, God instructed Abraham to kill his son Issac as a test of his faith. Abraham was willing to do it. Abraham is viewed as a person of perfect faith and held in high esteem by many Christians.
How is this different from Alex the Christian and his belief God wants him to kill his wife? How can a Christian praise the actions of Abraham, yet condemn the actions of Alex of the Christian?
How is this different from Alex the Christian and his belief God wants him to kill his wife? How can a Christian praise the actions of Abraham, yet condemn the actions of Alex of the Christian?
--converse02
67.November 01,2009, 2:35PM
I'm with you on this one, RD.
I agree that there is a bizarre double standard -- how do Christians know that God didn't tell Christian Alex to kill his wife? They totally dismiss this possibility of their worldview even though God has a track record of asking his followers to kill their family members (not to mention their enemies).
Alex the Christian has a properly basic religious belief -- he came to know as clear as day that God wanted his wife dead by his own hands. Have the Christians or atheists come up with a defeater for his belief?
Doubtful. We should be much stricter in demanding defeaters for properly basic religious beliefs and delusions that people have.
I agree that there is a bizarre double standard -- how do Christians know that God didn't tell Christian Alex to kill his wife? They totally dismiss this possibility of their worldview even though God has a track record of asking his followers to kill their family members (not to mention their enemies).
Alex the Christian has a properly basic religious belief -- he came to know as clear as day that God wanted his wife dead by his own hands. Have the Christians or atheists come up with a defeater for his belief?
Doubtful. We should be much stricter in demanding defeaters for properly basic religious beliefs and delusions that people have.
--ConverseAtheist
68.November 01,2009, 12:08PM
Well Atheists only have one belief possible, the belief that there is no God. However many Atheists are "negative" Atheists and only lack a belief in a God. This means that Christian beliefs are more likely to produce people to perform heinous actions.
Also are you trying to undermine Atheists by using the lower case "a". eg. atheist. While using a capital "C" for Christians?
Also are you trying to undermine Atheists by using the lower case "a". eg. atheist. While using a capital "C" for Christians?
--Zeus_FTW
69.November 01,2009, 12:06PM
This is a very provocative article, that is if ‘provocative’ is another word for ‘stupid’. It is an amazing reach to say that atheists are murdering people because they do not know right from wrong. Please, please, please, look at reports from the Journal for Religion and Society (a Christian university). They highlight a huge trend in American demographics where Christians are the most inclined to murder people. +15% of the US population is atheist and yet less than ½% of the prison population is atheist. You might also suggest that the police are out to arrest Christians for crimes as well?
You don’t hear about atheism being the reason for murdering someone because it never is. Sure atheists have murdered people but never have they professed that their disbelief in gods, unicorns, talking snakes, dragons, fortunetellers (yes all these are in the bible), world-wide floods, angels, demons, or walking dead people as being their reason for their crime. That defense, that fabrication (you are not a true journalist and that is what I am implying), would be on the level as a saying that your disbelief of leprechauns caused you to kill someone.
“We are all atheists, I just take it one god further.”
~Richard Dawkins
You don’t hear about atheism being the reason for murdering someone because it never is. Sure atheists have murdered people but never have they professed that their disbelief in gods, unicorns, talking snakes, dragons, fortunetellers (yes all these are in the bible), world-wide floods, angels, demons, or walking dead people as being their reason for their crime. That defense, that fabrication (you are not a true journalist and that is what I am implying), would be on the level as a saying that your disbelief of leprechauns caused you to kill someone.
“We are all atheists, I just take it one god further.”
~Richard Dawkins
--canaanav
About this blog
An exploration of faith, knowledge, reason and doubt (with the occasional trite pop culture reference thrown in for good measure).
Subscribe
Recent Posts
-
November 20,2009 | Comments
4 -
November 18,2009 | Comments 9
-
November 15,2009 | Comments 8
-
November 13,2009 | Comments 20
-
November 05,2009 | Comments 4
-
November 01,2009 | Comments 69
Contributor
Randal Rauser is associate professor of historical theology at Taylor Seminary, Edmonton, Canada and was granted Taylor's first annual teaching award for Outstanding Service to Students in 2005.
Most Popular
Most Commented
- Urban Legends in the Pulpit
- Were New Testament Christians reliable witnesses, or were they ignorant fools?
- Are answered prayers evidence for a providential God?
- A Tale of Two Murderers, one Christian and one Atheist
- Can there be morality without God?
- Does religion lead to bad parenting?
- Atheist faith-heads, naturally
- Should we lend terrorists a sympathetic ear?
- A Tale of Two Murderers, one Christian and one Atheist
- Atheism versus theism: who bears the burden of proof?
- Does religion lead to bad parenting?
- Atheist faith-heads, naturally
- Can there be morality without God?
- Beyond kindergarten Christianity
- Were New Testament Christians reliable witnesses, or were they ignorant fools?
- Urban Legends in the Pulpit
Most Popular on CP
Most Commented on CP
- 'Imagine No Religion' Billboards Hit Detroit
- Ga. Community Defends Bible Verses in Football Games
- Report: Over 350 Public Schools Teaching the Bible
- 'Ardi' Reverses Common Understanding of Human Evolution
- Protestants, Catholics Celebrate 10 Years of Consensus on Salvation
- Film Uncovers Dark Underworld of Modern-Day Slavery
- 'Blasphemy Day' Draws Fire from Event Sponsor's Founder
- 'Ardi' Reverses Common Understanding of Human Evolution
- Protestants, Catholics Celebrate 10 Years of Consensus on Salvation
- 'Imagine No Religion' Billboards Hit Detroit
- Ga. Community Defends Bible Verses in Football Games
- Judge Orders Prop. 8 Proponents to Release Private Records
- Prayerful Americans Called to 'Adopt a Liberal'
- Report: Over 350 Public Schools Teaching the Bible
RSS