Posted on 11/27/2007 11:53:56 AM PST by Between the Lines
Christian kids are typically sent to Sunday school for lessons on the Bible and morals. For nonbelievers, there's atheist Sunday school.
With an estimated 14 percent of Americans professing to have no religion, according to the Institute for Humanist Studies, some are choosing to send their children to classes that teach ethics without religious belief.
Bri Kneisley sent her 10-year-old son, Damian, to Camp Quest Ohio this past summer after a neighbor had shown him the Bible.
"Damian was quite certain this guy was right and was telling him this amazing truth that I had never shared," said Kneisley, who realized her son needed to learn about secularism, according to Time magazine.
Camp Quest, also dubbed "The Secular Summer Camp," is offered for children of atheists, freethinkers, humanists and other nonbelievers who hold to a "naturalistic, not supernatural world view," the camp website states.
The summer camp, offered across North America and supported by the Institute for Humanist Studies, is designed to teach rational inquiry, critical thinking, scientific method, ethics, free speech, and the separation of religion and government.
Kneisley welcomes the sense of community the camp offers her son.
"He's a child of atheist parents, and he's not the only one in the world," she said, according to Time.
Atheist and humanist programs are expected to pop up in such cities as Phoenix, Albuquerque, N.M., and Portland, Ore., and adult nonbelievers are leaning on such secular Sunday schools to help teach their kids values and how to respond to the Christian majority in the United States.
Outspoken atheist Richard Dawkins argues that teaching faith to children can be dangerous, noting the possibility of extremism.
"The point about teaching children that faith is a virtue is that you're teaching them that you don't have to justify what you do, you can simply shelter behind the statement 'that's my faith and you're not to question that,'" he argued in a debate with Christian apologist John Lennox last month.
A recent study by Ellison Research, however, found that most Americans who attended church as a child say their past worship attendance has had a positive impact on them. The majority, including those who no longer currently attend religious services, said their attendance at church as a child gave them a good moral foundation and that they are glad they attended.
Yet today, nonbelievers want their children to participate in Sunday school the secular way.
"I'm a person that doesn't believe in myths," says Hana, 11, who attends the Humanist Community Center in Palo Alto, Calif., according to Time. "I'd rather stick to the evidence."
Here is a syllogism:
I owe obedience to God.
God has commanded that I not steal.
Therefore I should not steal.
You can attack the premises but not the syllogism.
Your argument would be:
I should not hurt others.
Stealing hurts others.
Therefore I should not steal.
It is a good syllogism but doesn’t move the ball, so to speak, because the 1st premise is the important one to prove in the context of athiestic morality. Two Christians discussing syllogism 1 are in complete agreement on the premises. So in a Christian Sunday school there is a basis for discussing ethics and morality. In an athiest Sunday school there is no ultimate agreed upon premise to ground moral arguments upon and, in fact, the agreement is to toss out the only premise that works which is God. Athiest’s must create a shared premise but they are by definition rejecting the ultimate truth. The desire to find a reason to be good is a call to God.
So knowing these things about human nature, which scenario is more likely?
A nomadic group that has been wandering the wilderness for years comes upon a fertile land which unfortunately is inhabited already. In order to get this land for themselves, they go to war. In the process they destroy whole cities down to the last inhabitant. In order to whip up enthusiasm for the killing, the leaders of this group tell them that their warfare is condoned by God and that he will help them destroy the enemy. This same highly effective strategy has been used by groups through all of history--American Indians, Aztecs, the Conquistadors, the British imperialists, the Crusaders, the Romans, the Greeks, the Chinese, the Arabs. As a result, the invaders successfully drive out the inhabitants and take over the area.
A benevolent, loving, just God has chosen a group of people to lead them to a Promised Land. Unfortunately, it is already inhabited. The people there are not better nor worse than any other group at that time--parochial altruists, worshiping some benevolent gods and some warlike gods, treating their neighbors with some consideration yet killing or enslaving those of other groups without much concern. This loving, just God orders his people to go to war with the inhabitants. However, they are not only to kill everyone who takes up a sword against them, but kill all noncombatants in the cities, even the babies. At this point God has told them to kill every last person, but later he relaxes his rules and says when they go to war they can take prisoners as slaves and force into marriage any attractive young women they find. These rules hold for centuries, but then suddenly this God changes his mind and killing, slavery, and rape are no longer acceptable.
It is because of this that I left Christianity. At that time I was reading about Islam and thought it a horrible religion, but realized that if I were to try to argue that someone would just ask me, "What about the Canaanites?" So I sat down to try to figure out once and for all how that genocide could be good. I ultimatel realized that the Hebrews were acting like any other group at that time, and showed no signs of being under divine command--at least not by any God that I would want to be associated with! I am more of a moral absolutist, and the Bible simply does not support that.
No, my syllogism would be the one I provided. You can’t say I said something I didn’t say, demolish that, and then say because you demolished something I didn’t say my argument is invalid. *head spinning*
At any rate, your answer is decidedly underwhelming, and certainly not rational.
Therefore: It is logically consistent that I should treat others as I would like to be treated.
One of the problems with logic is that is equally valid whether it is applied to valid or invalid assumptions. Your pseudo-proof is an example of the latter.
The problems start when I question your assumptions.
For one thing, you seem to be basing "right" or "wrong" on what you, personally, want; and that others share that particular desire. But that's a pretty poor pair of assumptions, especially since "want" is such a subjective thing. What if "others" want something different from what you want?
For example, your logic collapses if I decide that I "want" your car, and decide that the possibility of gain from harming you, outweighs the risk of my being harmed in return. Here in the real world this sort of logic is played out every single day.
Nor am I required simply to accept without question your claim that no human is "more inherently valuable than others." If I claim otherwise, on what rational basis could you counter it, especially given that, in terms of how they benefit the rest of us, some people really do seem to be more valuable than others?
(I will suggest, too, that you probably don't really believe your own claim, except as a "necessary condition" to support a precarious logical progression.)
I don't want to be stolen from, it's fairly safe to say I share this opinion with pretty much all of humanity, so therefore I should not steal from others.
A very sweet sentiment, which is unfortunately at odds with reality. There are a lot of thieves out there, and (as we see in the "looting shots" from any number of natural or man-made disasters) they're especially prevalent in situations where they're reasonably certain that they will not be caught or punished for their actions.
If you want to create a morality based on the extension of personal wants to the broader population, then we can also propose an alternative:
1. I want as much as I can get, with as little effort as possible.
2. I will take as much as I can, so long as I realize a net gain.
3. I can take things from other people, so long as I gain more than I lose.
4. Realizing a net gain is good.
5. Realizing a net loss is not good.
6. It is easier to take things from other people if I am stronger than they are, than if they are stronger than I am.
7. Strength means better chances of gain, so strength is better than weakness.
Therefore, since "net gain" is good, Might Makes Right.
God burned Sodom and Gommorrah with fire and brimstone, killing all but one family in the cities. This was an act of God. Moses led his people from slavery. This was an act of God. The Israelites settled in the promised land, defeating the Cannanites in war to do so. This was an act of God. You don’t understand my argument because you do not apply the premise of a sovereign God. So my syllogism is:
Obedience to God is good.
God commanded the Israelites to kill the Cannanites.
Therefore killing the Cannanites was good.
Your syllogism is:
Killing is bad.
The Israelites killed the Cannanites.
Therefore the Israelites were bad.
Your syllogism leaves out WHY the Israelites killed the Cannanites which is the whole matter of whether it was right or wrong.
Indeed. Thanks for the ping!
"Therefore killing [her children] was good."
I have already answered this question from you once before, but you seem now to have added a twist. Before, your question was about a man saving his children from a burning building, now it is merely "helping" members of one's family. So since you have reworded you question, let me reword my answer. A person protecting their family is acting instinctively not altruistically. A person "helping" their family may or may not be acting altruistically, their motives would have to be examined to determine which.
Certainly ants don't defend their colony to the death because they think, "I cannot breed, so I must do everything I can to protect the colony so my mother can survive to pass on more of the genes that I share." They just do it.
They "just do it" because it is instinct- not altruism. If the ant could be altruistic surely there would be cases where the ant defended the beetle or the lady bug. (Yes, I know I am being ridiculous with this statement, but no more ridiculous than you speculating on the ant's reasoning process.)
(we didn’t even know how altruism developed until recently, so for most of humanity’s history this wasn’t an option, and even now that we understand altruism we would think it ridiculous!)
This gets to the bottom of why the science has a hard time with idea of altruism. The scientific mind cannot let something simply be what it is. They must dissect it and it must be explained rationally. While that may work for many things, it does not work for altruism. For once you have attributed a reason for altruism to be, it ceases to be altruism in the original sense of the word.
You are mistaken.
One of the problems with logic is that is equally valid whether it is applied to valid or invalid assumptions.
Ah-hah, so you agree that my conclusion is logically valid. :-D
For example, your logic collapses if I decide that I "want" your car, and decide that the possibility of gain from harming you, outweighs the risk of my being harmed in return.
You are mistaken. The question is not "Do I want his car?", the question is "Would I dislike it if he stole my car?" A person might very well decide to steal a car because he wanted it and thought he could get away with it, but in doing so he would violate morality.
If I claim otherwise, on what rational basis could you counter it, especially given that, in terms of how they benefit the rest of us, some people really do seem to be more valuable than others?
You silly little pickle! Ahem, excuse me, got carried away to a Veggie Tales flashback.
I am constantly being told by Christians that humans can make no value judgements in the absence of an outside standard, which is commonly claimed to be God, yet when I agree with that in part you contradict me! Any value judgements we make without that standard are subjective. Your claim to be superior is contrary to Ghengis Khan's claim to be superior, which is contrary to random caveman's claim to be superior. Who is really superior? We have no rational basis for claiming any person is, any more than we can say one bacterium is better than another or this hydrogen molecule here is better than the one there.
especially given that, in terms of how they benefit the rest of us, some people really do seem to be more valuable than others?
This is again subjective. I might perceive my doctor as being more valuable than you because he can treat my asthma and that of many others, while you cannot (but then your kids would probably think you are more valuable than the doctor--who's to say who is right?) Perhaps this way of valuation might be useful in some contexts, like making a utilitarian decision about which to grab if a ravine suddenly opened beneath you two and I could only save one, but it tells me nothing when it comes to the question of who it is ok to poke in the eye.
Likewise you might think that an apple tree is "better" than the dogwood next to it because it produces apples while the dogwood just looks pretty. But that's a subjective judgement based on the fact that you like apples. In actuality, it's just a tree, it doesn't exist for your benefit (unless perhaps you are "better" than everyone else), and it is neither "better" nor "worse" than the dogwood.
A very sweet sentiment, which is unfortunately at odds with reality. There are a lot of thieves out there, and (as we see in the "looting shots" from any number of natural or man-made disasters) they're especially prevalent in situations where they're reasonably certain that they will not be caught or punished for their actions.
Again, you mistake what I wrote. I said I do not want others to steal from me, and others don't want to be stolen from. Are you telling me if I walked up to a looter and stole his stolen TV from me he wouldn't object? Of course not.
Please try to post something that actually addresses what I said.
The idea that Christianity is so simple that it can be reduced to a single syllogism is silly and I wasn’t saying that it can be. I was just showing the different premises of ahayes and myself.
1 John 4
Test the Spirits
1Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.
I think also that the scriptures related to community and looking to others as well as yourself, to stay in God’s word, to pray, and the like can save people from doing terrible things.
Also, I can’t be sure that Yates really believed that God told her anything or whether it was a legal ruse, or whether she was touched not by God but by evil, etc.
Altruism is helping in a self-sacrificial manner (whether or not one actually sacrifices anything, it's altruism as long as the potential is there).
A person protecting their family is acting instinctively not altruistically. A person "helping" their family may or may not be acting altruistically, their motives would have to be examined to determine which.
Wonky, so helping my son with his homework may be more altruistic than saving him from a burning building. . .
They "just do it" because it is instinct- not altruism. If the ant could be altruistic surely there would be cases where the ant defended the beetle or the lady bug.
Once again assuming relatives are excluded.
Yes, I know I am being ridiculous with this statement, but no more ridiculous than you speculating on the ant's reasoning process.
Actually I said the ant does not reason.
While that may work for many things, it does not work for altruism.
It does, and as I said before the scientific study of altruism has predictive value for the behavior of many organism.
For once you have attributed a reason for altruism to be, it ceases to be altruism in the original sense of the word.
It kind of sucks to realize that everything you think you do for a noble reason, you only do because genes for doing so have been more successful than genes for not doing so, and genes for the accompanying emotions are part of it. But nobody thinks about it for long, and it is true that people do have a choice about whether to follow altruistic urges or not--at least as long as they are convinced they have a choice. ;-)
As long as she's a Canaanite, I guess so. :-P
Is it possible God really did tell her to kill her kids?
Neither can I. Which, when all is said and done, is precisely why we rely on ourselves to determine what is right or wrong, and why we don't "test the spirits" to find out.
I'm noticing that a lot of people on FR don't even understand what the Golden Rule is. That would include you.
When wolves hunt in a pack, they are not practicing the Golden Rule, nor altruism. If they were to continue bringing food to a toothless wolf that could no longer hunt, nor reproduce at the detriment of their own chances for survival, then they would be practicing altruism.
It is because of this that I left Christianity. At that time I was reading about Islam and thought it a horrible religion, but realized that if I were to try to argue that someone would just ask me, “What about the Canaanites?” So I sat down to try to figure out once and for all how that genocide could be good.
_________________________
Well, the killing of the Canaanites was good because God commanded it, it was within God’s plan, and God is just and loving. There can be no injustice in it. You can spin all sorts of hypotheticals erasing any moral qualms — God stands outside of time and saw the life of each Canaanite in full and exercised justice. All have sinned including the Canaanites and all deserve punishment so God’s mercy is what is amazing, not death. God bestowed his grace upon the Canaanites and they are with him now. Ultimately you do not know and have to trust God or live without him.
You left Christianity, not because you couldn’t think through the sovereignty of God as a logical matter but because you did not have faith that God exists.
_______________________
I ultimatel realized that the Hebrews were acting like any other group at that time, and showed no signs of being under divine command—at least not by any God that I would want to be associated with!
_______________________
You credit the history of the Canaanites, but not the history of wandering in the desert with manna from heaven or the parting of the Red Sea. These are sure signs of being under divine command. You credit what gives you problems in faith but not what gives you hope.
________________________
I am more of a moral absolutist, and the Bible simply does not support that.
________________________
But it does.
Mark 12
The Greatest Commandment
28One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, “Of all the commandments, which is the most important?”
29”The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. 30Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ 31The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’There is no commandment greater than these.”
32”Well said, teacher,” the man replied. “You are right in saying that God is one and there is no other but him. 33To love him with all your heart, with all your understanding and with all your strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself is more important than all burnt offerings and sacrifices.”
34When Jesus saw that he had answered wisely, he said to him, “You are not far from the kingdom of God.” And from then on no one dared ask him any more questions.
No, not "mistaken." You're demanding that I accept your assumptions, and operate according to your premises. But I'm challenging them instead -- I'm suggesting that logic is insufficient here: your premises must also be valid.
In essence, you're basing the "morality" of stealing on a personal view of "what I want", extending your personal view to others, and drawing a global conclusion.
The problem is that it doesn't work. I have offered an opposing alternative, also based on "what I want," which also follows logically from a set of premises, and which leads to a conclusion that contradicts what you claim to be the "moral" approach to stealing.
In this case, the car thief may well violate your morality, but in so doing, he would satisfy his own morality.
The prickly problem is that you're claiming a superior morality -- but on what basis? Are your "wants" somehow better than his? Not according to you: "Neither I nor any other human is more inherently valuable than others." So your wants are not superior to his -- nor, by extension, is your want-based morality superior to his. So he can steal if he wants, and you can not steal, as suits your assessment of the situation. And thus we reach a situation where the same underlying moral basis, "what I want," leads to opposing views of "moral behavior." In other words, your morality has no rational meaning.
Oops.
yet when I agree with that in part you contradict me!
The problem is not in the "agreement," but in the irrationality of your position. The example above demonstrates the point. The key is not in the logic, but rather in the validity of your premises.
Please try to post something that actually addresses what I said.
I did. I slapped you across the face with the cold, wet fish of reality.
"These are sure signs of being under divine command."
“There are none so blind, as those who would not see...”
You sir, have been blinded by science.
Neither can I [know the true motivations of Andrea Yates]. Which, when all is said and done, is precisely why we rely on ourselves to determine what is right or wrong, and why we don’t “test the spirits” to find out.
_____________________
Proverbs 3
5 Trust in the LORD with all your heart
and lean not on your own understanding;
6 in all your ways acknowledge him,
and he will make your paths straight.
We have different estimations of our intellectual prowess and ability to logically deduce right action absent God. Witness your average communist who has deduced that policy X will help us all.
By saying you don’t “test the spirits” I assume you basically take the stance that there are none that effect you. We disagree here as well. That verse is actually a call to reason and not against it, and a call to use of your mind (the spirits being spoken of in the verse can be in a man that is speaking to you in this context . . . not just some disembodied ghostlike thing that you may be imagining or some Hollywood demonic possession).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.