Is religion guilty of moving the goalposts?

[uwot]

I believe you are correct about most theists, but I would also suggest that a few are willing to acknowledge that there is some truth in other religions, and there is at least one person on the planet that believes that all religions have some bit of God's truth and that no religion is all correct and exclusive. While I will allow others to anthropomorphize God, I think of God as a formless and spiritual.

I think this is the point that Immanuel Can mocked, I thought unkindly. I don't know whether god exists, but I do know that I am extremely fortunate to be able to feel a sense of wonder at being alive and to enjoy this extraordinary world. I think there is a common thread in most religions that shares that awe. It is a poor religion that doesn't.

[Immanuel Can]

Talking to a Budhist two days ago about this very subject, she is middle aged came from a very poor region in Malaysia. She does not consider it a Religion but more of a way of life or direction in life.

Well, I shouldn't need to point out that a single case is not an argument, because everybody knows that: but I will anyway.

To treat, say, Tibetan Buddhism as a "non-religion" is absurd. It may not have a single-god concept a la monotheism, but it's got multiple spooks, credulous supernaturalism and superstition, ritual, mystic enlightenments, ritual demands, moral directives, religious garments and places, a religious sense of time...and a host of other such "religious" trappings. Or consider Myanmar Buddhism, with its exotic temples, rituals, sacrifices, Buddha statues, flowers, incense and sacrifices...do you really want to say none of that is sufficient to warrant calling it a "religion"? Is it just a "way of life" there? There are far too many cases to make such an absurd exception claim for Buddhism. We in the West have the luxury of make-believe about that, yet only because here Buddhism is a minority taste and a mostly a secularized practice. In its native lands, it's very much a "religion."

Yet I suppose you could argue, though, that since the whole idea of "religion" is an external construct imposed primarily for secular purposes, perhaps the word itself is just so vague as to be useless; but if you argue that, you'll have a difficult time to explain why he chose to use it.

But let me grant you that, just for fun. If I do, does it help him one bit with the wildness of his next statement about the universal meaning of all religions?

It is nothing but arrogance, bluster and nonsense. He knows nothing about any of the "religious" systems he claims to interpret, and thinks he can exposit them beyond the expository ability of their own participants! From the outside, he thinks he knows more than they know from the inside! And on top of that, he forgets to exclude even my own belief system from his claim, so now he's graciously informing me about the "core meaning" of even my own belief!

Maybe I can tell him something about his!

[Kurt]

I'm not making an argument just a single observation. Most religions seem to have a beginning, middle and end outcome would this be considered to be one definition of what makes something a religion.

[Immanuel Can]

Not a bad thought, Kurt. Every religion does indeed have some account of our beginning, some account of the end, goal or purpose of life, plus some sort of ethics in the middle. That's true.

It also describes Naturalist Atheism, however. Atheism holds (unless I am mistaken, so feel free to correct me; after all, it's not my belief system) that we began accidentally, as a product of a hydrogen explosion known as the Big Bang. We will all ultimately end in oblivion, with our atoms scattered in an absolutely equal distribution throughout the cosmos. And the ethics in the middle are...

I'm not sure.

Can anyone help me with that?

[uwot]

Not a bad thought, Kurt. Every religion does indeed have some account of our beginning, some account of the end, goal or purpose of life, plus some sort of ethics in the middle. That's true.

It also describes Naturalist Atheism, however. Atheism holds (unless I am mistaken, so feel free to correct me; after all, it's not my belief system) that we began accidentally, as a product of a hydrogen explosion known as the Big Bang. We will all ultimately end in oblivion, with our atoms scattered in an absolutely equal distribution throughout the cosmos. And the ethics in the middle are...

I'm not sure.

Can anyone help me with that?

The big bang was first posited by Georges Lemaitre, a Belgian catholic priest, I think in 1929. It was a response to the galactic red shift recorded by Edwin Hubble which suggested that the universe was expanding. Lemaitre extrapolated from the fact that, therefore the universe was previously smaller, to the point when it is was a point. He called it the 'cosmic egg'. The fact that it was proposed by a 'man of god' and could be interpreted as a moment of creation was anathema to the atheist Fred Hoyle who dismissed it as the 'big bang' and the name stuck. By comparison, a hydrogen explosion, the destruction of the Hindenburg for example, is piffling. There was, according to the theory no hydrogen for several hundred thousand years anyway, the early universe being too dense and hot for leptons to bind and make atoms. As you say, eventually the universe will be very big and cold, so much so that there will not be enough energy in any one place even to form an atom.
Anyway, that's the theory. In between a seething birth and frigid death, as you note, there is us and we all have to rub along. But since we all have different views of how the universe works, I don't think it is a good idea to nail our ethics to any one version. In that respect, I'm not sure either and I don't care, I just feel that people should be helped and encouraged to make the best of their time on Earth.

[Immanuel Can]

In between a seething birth and frigid death, as you note, there is us and we all have to rub along. But since we all have different views of how the universe works, I don't think it is a good idea to nail our ethics to any one version. In that respect, I'm not sure either and I don't care, I just feel that people should be helped and encouraged to make the best of their time on Earth.

That's pretty much what I thought. Thanks.

However, the "should" above is gratuitous, of course, or else a mere expression of personal opinion with no binding force on anyone else, since there's no ethical "should" about a purely material universe. If someone "should" happen to want to ignore any and all ethical precepts, including your kind advice, and if he "should happen" to see that it was in his interests to do so, we would be hard pressed to say there would be any reason why we "should" stop him -- given, again, the Atheist worldview.

We "could" stop him, of course; and there's no reason why we "should" not either. We could subject him to our preferred ethics, we could remove all freedom from him, and if we should happen to want it, we could torture him to death -- or release him and crown him king. There's no moral map in an Atheist universe, save whatever seems reasonable to us individually at the present moment. As you say, "We're not sure and we don't care" is pretty much all we have to say.

It's every man for himself, boys; and devil take the hindmost. What a wonderful world!

[uwot]

It's every man for himself, boys; and devil take the hindmost. What a wonderful world!

Fortunately we have politics; we can argue for what we feel is right.

[Immanuel Can]

But, of course, we just "feel". It' isn't "right" per se. And we can argue, and if the majority of power-holders agrees, we win. And if we can't, we lose.

Devil take the weakest too.

We might consider revising the header to this thread to read, "Is Atheism guilty of having no goalposts, no sidelines, no end lines, no rules, and of course, no Referee at all."

[uwot]

We might consider revising the header to this thread to read, "Is Atheism guilty of having no goalposts, no sidelines, no end lines, no rules, and of course, no Referee at all."

Shall we put it to a vote?

[Immanuel Can]

Hey, a good witty answer. Let's let power decide it.

I agree that such a vote would surely fail; but would it fail because the question is wrong, or because Atheism can't afford to answer it? I imagine it would probably fail because the only way to sustain a commitment to Atheism is NOT to ask such questions. As soon as its logical consequences become clear, it becomes a very unpleasant worldview, one without moral content at all. No one really wants to live that way.

But that raises an additional question: if Atheism is both inherently amoral and practically unliveable, why do people love it so?

[Kurt]

Does a pure atheist even exist is it possible to be one. I mean it's easy call yourself an atheist but can it be fully incorporated into every minute of someone's life or does some sort of other belief or faith creep into a persons actions or observations. Why do we morn a death for example. Why do we explore and create and does this require some sort of belief. All this aside though if a world existed with only pure atheists, I have a belief it would be a very boring and bland (possabily cruel) place to be.
Personally I don't regard myself as an atheist or having a single faith but I do believe in the 'possibility' of anything. Some might call this as sitting on the fence, but I see it as being a realist. Can some one enlighten me if there is a word describing this way of thinking. Cheers

[uwot]

Hey, a good witty answer. Let's let power decide it.

I agree that such a vote would surely fail; but would it fail because the question is wrong, or because Atheism can't afford to answer it? I imagine it would probably fail because the only way to sustain a commitment to Atheism is NOT to ask such questions. As soon as its logical consequences become clear, it becomes a very unpleasant worldview, one without moral content at all. No one really wants to live that way.

But that raises an additional question: if Atheism is both inherently amoral and practically unliveable, why do people love it so?

Have a look around, there are plenty people with no adherence to any particular god, but who nonetheless manage to live practically; whether atheists love it so is something you would have to ask an atheist, as I keep saying: I am not an atheist.(Kurt; for your information you're an agnostic. Welcome to the club.) However, like some atheists, the fact that daddy isn't there to beat me with a slipper isn't cause for me to ruthlessly exploit my fellow human in the way, say, TV evangelists do.
We've had this conversation before and as I have stated, ethics is not my strong point, largely because I don't care if it is 'Good' or 'Evil' in the grand scheme of things: I have no wish to cause unnecessary suffering and I will do what I can to prevent other people doing so. If I get to the Pearly Gates and St Peter says: 'Sorry chum, not good enough.' I'll say: 'See ya later, noster pater. The devil has all the best tunes anyway.'

[Immanuel Can]

Have a look around, there are plenty people with no adherence to any particular god, but who nonetheless manage to live practically;

Of course. There's no disputing that. "Practical" isn't the issue at all. Even whether or not an Atheist can live what a Christian or other Theist would consider a "moral" life isn't the issue. We'd all concede that there are some very "nice" Atheists, as people go.

The real question is, "Is there anything that their Atheism actually contributes to their being that way?" Or is the only way an Atheist can be moral or nice by borrowing from some other worldview or tradition the moral resources of which Atheism itself is completely bankrupt? In other words, is "good Atheist" a synonym for "rationally inconsistent."

I don't care if it is 'Good' or 'Evil' in the grand scheme of things:

Now *that* is consistent Atheism (or perhaps Agnosticism; for although the Atheist could fully assent to that dismissal, the Agnostic would have to retain nagging doubts that maybe he *should* care.)

I have no wish to cause unnecessary suffering and I will do what I can to prevent other people doing so.

That is fortunate for us. In my world, that is a morally laudable position on your part.

Let us both hope, then, that all Atheists share your gratuitous aversion to harm and your Atheistically-inconsistent preference for so doing. But I'm not sure we've seen the last of the people who, like Nietzsche in Philosophy or Stalin in politics, are willing to take the logic of their Atheism more seriously, and (respectively) say "We're beyond good and evil," and "Let's kill whomever we wish."

[aiddon]

Of course. There's no disputing that. "Practical" isn't the issue at all. Even whether or not an Atheist can live what a Christian or other Theist would consider a "moral" life isn't the issue. We'd all concede that there are some very "nice" Atheists, as people go.

The real question is, "Is there anything that their Atheism actually contributes to their being that way?" Or is the only way an Atheist can be moral or nice by borrowing from some other worldview or tradition the moral resources of which Atheism itself is completely bankrupt? In other words, is "good Atheist" a synonym for "rationally inconsistent."

Now *that* is consistent Atheism (or perhaps Agnosticism; for although the Atheist could fully assent to that dismissal, the Agnostic would have to retain nagging doubts that maybe he *should* care.)


Let us both hope, then, that all Atheists share your gratuitous aversion to harm and your Atheistically-inconsistent preference for so doing. But I'm not sure we've seen the last of the people who, like Nietzsche in Philosophy or Stalin in politics, are willing to take the logic of their Atheism more seriously, and (respectively) say "We're beyond good and evil," and "Let's kill whomever we wish."

As I have been out of this discussion for a while now (and noticed even the threat of the title of the thread be changed...), allow me to come back in.

IC, though we are on the verge of repeating the same old ground in the Grounding Ethics discussion over on the Applied Ethics board - which has been argued extensively, I will still make one observation:

I think you may have things somewhat in reverse. Have you considered for one moment that morality and ethics as espoused by religion is based on the fundamental nature of humanity? Being a good Christian, for example, is desirable because it is good, not because it is Christian. The concept of good and bad did not come into existence because people read the Bible - goodness is a property of humanity. You are taking the Dosteoevsky line, that everything is permissible without God - well, you must have very little faith in humanity. Your contention that the notion of a "good atheist" is irrational, but I argue, no it isn't. Thank you for conceding that there are some nice atheists out there, but it is a little condescending to suggest that we somehow borrow from traditions to construct our moral framework. I absolutely and strongly refute this. Again, you use the example of the atheist regime of Stalin (two mutually exclusive concepts, by the way - atheist and regime...Stalin regarded any institution as a threat and therefore religion was supressed - he did train as a priest, you know). Now, I presume you're aware that not everyone in communist Russia was a maniac at the time, for example the general population. Second and third generations under Stalinist rule had very scant interaction with religion, in fact you could say religion played no part whatsoever in moral instruction (whatever little there was) amongst young Russians. There was no "tradition" to borrow from. Yet, somewhow, there were good people - many millions of them. They even managed to overthrow the communist regime and freedoms (such as the practice of religion) was restored. Their morality was derived from their humanness - the innate goodness in the human race which allows it to overcome oppression, to aim to strive for a more peaceable world.

Yes, religion provides an excellent moral bedrock for people to subscribe to, a noble one even. But it draws on the qualities of humanity in the first place. In this sense, there is no need for the referee, the sideline, the rules as you call it. These are all weaved into us as much as our DNA is. The analogy of a referee is too simplistic and misleading, and the kind of argument that can draw the unthinking into unquestioning faith.

[thedoc]

There seems to be lines of argument here that humans are naturally good people, moral and ethical.

There is also the observations that morals and ethics are taught and promoted by religions.

I'm not sure how this will fit, but it occurs to me that a person could develop a sense of morality and ethics and be a good person, and then recognize those qualities in religious teachings, and because of this be drawn to that religion. It is possible that a person is brought up with these morals and ethics and concurrently grow up with a religious background and because the two coincide, they stay with the religion. It is possible that morals and ethics do not flow from the religion to the individual, but are recognized as a fit to what the individual has developed naturally.