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."
Good grief.
Matthew 7
Tree and Its Fruit
15”Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.
21”Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’ 23Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’
Please demonstrate which is invalid in what fashion.
In this case, the car thief may well violate your morality, but in so doing, he would satisfy his own morality.
It is not "my" morality, it is morality. The reasoning is applicable to every person.
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.
Nope, sorry, try again. You might try looking at the premises and pointing out which is wrong.
I did. I slapped you across the face with the cold, wet fish of reality.
Really? Looks like the cold, wet fish of your confused misinterpretation to me.
You seem to be working from a definition of altruism that is unique and not entirely clear.
I'm sorry if I have offended you, I was merely trying to figure out what you meant and communicate my understanding of altruism.
I didn't say they were. Nice straw man, though.
If Good is simply what God does and Good includes genocide and infanticide, does Good really resolve with what we consider good at all? Redefining Good in this way places God outside our understanding completely. If Good can seem so evil, maybe Evil is really good. Perhaps God has been deceiving us (he could do that because everything he does is Good, and while he said 2000 years ago that he wouldn't deceive us, he might have changed his mind like he did about infanticide, slavery, and rape) and he is actually more like what we think Satan to be. If God is really so incomprehensible and vacillating, hell might be a more pleasant eternal destination.
You never answered my question about whether you would be joyous in the righteous act of burning a Canaanite baby to 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.
That's an extrabiblical assumption, and Christians have burned other Christians at the stake for thinking such things.
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 credit the secular history of the Canaanites.
Once again, even assuming the Hebrews were called by God and he worked miracles for them, if he is the demonic God I spoke of above, it is better not to worship him.
Considering God's apparent character, such miracles give me no hope.
The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’There is no commandment greater than these.”
Are you sure that still holds true? It certainly didn't when God told the Hebrews to commit genocide.
And, apparently, we have very different estimations of the credibility of people who claim to be carrying out the will of God.
You may earnestly believe that a "test of the spirits" is the only way to determine whether the 9/11 bombers were murderers. But, not only do I have no way of verifying that your "spirit test" is any more valid than their "spirit test," I also have no way of knowing whether your next "spirit test" won't tell you to kill me.
Hence, my preference for dastardly "man-made laws" and rather more predictable "secular morality." Combined, they have teeth, and for the most part tend to keep the "spirit testers" in check.
Witness your average communist who has deduced that policy X will help us all.
I don't think God sets U.S. economic policy, and there's no shortage of Christian communists.
I demonstrated that basing moral reasoning on "what I want" can lead to contradictory moral judgments. What more demonstration do you need?
It is not "my" morality, it is morality.
So you're claiming an absolute morality, based on "what you want" and an assumption about "what others want."
The reasoning is applicable to every person.
The problem is, so is my reasoning applicable to every person -- and it leads to the opposing conclusions -- and thus to the conclusion that "want-based" morality is inherently contradictory.
Look, FRiend, it is not enough simply to claim "it is morality." You've got to be able to defend the claim. What GregF and I are doing, is challenging you to provide the objective basis by which you can stoutly claim, "it is morality." And so far, you've failed to do so.
I do not wish to be harmed. This is universally true. Even a masochist has multitudes of types of harm he would object to. This premise is unassailable.
But it's also incomplete, which is why it's not a valid premise for the type of universal moral principles you're claiming to demonstrate.
For example, I am willing to risk being harmed in cases where I believe the probability of gain outweighs the potential costs. In some cases I am willing to actually be harmed, for the same reason. If I perceive that the risk of being harmed by stealing your car is outweighed by the benefits of my taking it ... your "morality" does not address that.
We could also attack the premise from another direction: what "harm" is it to you, if I take "your" car? What makes it "yours" in the first place? What confers any sort of moral weight to the word "your?" At the moment, the only thing that gives the word any moral weight, is that you don't "want" to lose "your" car -- it's "yours" because you "want" it. But I want it, too ... so doesn't that make it "my" car?
It might just be the case that I don't care what you want as much as I care about what I want, with minimal cost to myself. We might summarize this alternative moral system as, "whatever I can get away with." (Perhaps we can call it "Clintonian morality.")
From this it follows I should not harm other people. You already admitted this conclusion is logical supposing the premises are accurate.
There are several problems here. First, I did not suppose the premises are accurate. Second, your first two premises do logically imply the third premise. In fact, they lead more naturally to a contradiction of your third premise.
Let's accept that you do not wish to be harmed, and let's accept that you're no more valuable than anybody else, which in this context means that your wants are no better than mine. The second premise says that I don't have to consider your wants, because they're no better than mine -- if what I want harms you, there's no moral problem, because our wants have equal value. There is no reason why I should not behave as I want to, regardless of whether or not you're harmed.
What you're presupposing -- and again, this is the problem -- is that some wants are superior to others. Specifically, that your desire not to be harmed, is more important than my desire to get what I want.
Because you are a member of a society and that means you don't steal from someone, as a part of the social contract, because if it's okay for you to do it, don't be surprised when you notice things of yours coming up "missing."
So you say ... but I never signed any contract, and I don't much care about "society," except for what I can get out of it. Then what?
because if it's okay for you to do it, don't be surprised when you notice things of yours coming up "missing."
Yeah, but so what? All that means is that I need to be more careful with my stuff, and maybe think of more clever ways of stealing so that I won't get caught. And make sure that I'm stronger than other folks, so that nobody will mess with me, no matter what I do -- might makes right, doesn't it?
And, apparently, we have very different estimations of the credibility of people who claim to be carrying out the will of God.
_____________________
The issue isn’t the credibility of people who claim to be carrying out the will of God. It is your decisions, and mine, that I am talking about. With God = Good. Without God = Good, bad and ugly depending on the moment, and never truly good since the 1st and greatest commandment is to love God with all your heart.
_____________________
You may earnestly believe that a “test of the spirits” is the only way to determine whether the 9/11 bombers were murderers. But, not only do I have no way of verifying that your “spirit test” is any more valid than their “spirit test,” I also have no way of knowing whether your next “spirit test” won’t tell you to kill me.
____________________
“Testing the spirits” in that verse to me means think about it, compare it to the Bible, talk to fellow Christians about it, test it before you give it your faith.
_________________
Hence, my preference for dastardly “man-made laws” and rather more predictable “secular morality.” Combined, they have teeth, and for the most part tend to keep the “spirit testers” in check.
_________________
I’ve made no argument against secular law.
_________________
Witness your average communist who has deduced that policy X will help us all.
__________________
I don’t think God sets U.S. economic policy, and there’s no shortage of Christian communists.
__________________
I agree that there has been no shortage of Christian communists . . . with the caveat that I can argue that they are wrong with “Thou shalt not steal” alone . . . and understanding that Christians were among the main opponents of Soviet marxism. Christian communism in Acts was an act of choice; disciples willingly donated their goods to live in community and were not forced at all to do so. Bad example I suppose, but the point stands that we all make mistakes relying on our own reason without God. Big ones and I’m not talking about political policy, but the basic threads of our lives; hurting spouses, children, neighbors, ourselves, addiction, and the like that would be avoided by following God’s word. I used communism as an example because I figured two FReepers could agree that it was a mistake and many communists reasoned their way to the policy. Reason is not a sure guide to life. God is.
Well isn't a good thing that's not what I am basing it upon? It is based upon how I want others to treat me.
The problem is, so is my reasoning applicable to every person -- and it leads to the opposing conclusions -- and thus to the conclusion that "want-based" morality is inherently contradictory.
Your reasoning is not a rational basis for morality because it rests upon the assumption that people can make valid value judgements regarding the worth of people, when in fact such judgements are subjective and I explicitly deny their validity.
For example, I am willing to risk being harmed in cases where I believe the probability of gain outweighs the potential costs. In some cases I am willing to actually be harmed, for the same reason. If I perceive that the risk of being harmed by stealing your car is outweighed by the benefits of my taking it ... your "morality" does not address that.
That's because it's nonsensical. Each person's definition of harm will vary, the absolute nature of our objection to being harmed does not. You will accept pain inflicted by a dentist because that is not actual harm because you need to have a root canal. A teenage girl may accept pain in order to have her ears pierced. A college student accepts the pain of writing term papers in order to become educated. In each case something that is usually considered bad (pain or suffering) is beneficial in some way (not harmful).
I'll get to your obsession with the car thief.
We could also attack the premise from another direction: what "harm" is it to you, if I take "your" car? What makes it "yours" in the first place? What confers any sort of moral weight to the word "your?"
The existence of property is universally accepted (even among many animals). Even a toddler will object if you take his toy. The harm of having one's property taken is also universally accepted, as testified by the fit that toddler will throw. The objection to others harming oneself is instinctive and inherent and can also be seen in animals such as chimpanzees, which become angry when another chimpanzee steals their food (chimps believe in private property!) or hurts them.
At the moment, the only thing that gives the word any moral weight, is that you don't "want" to lose "your" car -- it's "yours" because you "want" it. But I want it, too ... so doesn't that make it "my" car?
Nope, as I've explained many many many times.
Let's go back to your car thief and apply my reasoning to him.
Therefore, the car thief is violating morality.
These standards are universal, objective, and applicable to every person.
Specifically, that your desire not to be harmed, is more important than my desire to get what I want.
It is, because my desire to get what I want is less important than your desire to not be harmed, as is logically consistent.
Isn't it. I'm dropping words like flies today. :-P
While with God, Good may be bad and ugly!
Don't try reasoning someone out of something they weren't reasoned into.
Well, then society has to take action against you. Enjoy your time in prison.
Yeah, but so what? All that means is that I need to be more careful with my stuff, and maybe think of more clever ways of stealing so that I won't get caught. And make sure that I'm stronger than other folks, so that nobody will mess with me, no matter what I do -- might makes right, doesn't it?
No. Taking away someone's property without due process is wrong because you can't do that to everyone and have a society. Might doesn't make "right," but it does make it so you can get away with doing what is wrong. Getting away with doing wrong isn't the same as doing right. The US operates as a bully in a lot of things because it can be a bully, but that doesn't make everything the US would ever do (or has done) right. Can the US nuke the planet many times over because the President doesn't like a political cartoon in France? Sure. That wouldn't be the right thing to do, though.
GregF is talking about rational, logical bases for moral action -- motivated by the simple question, "why shouldn't I steal?"
You came back with some fine words, but the question is, how would the counselors at atheist camp prove these assertions?
Supposing you're the counselor, I will play the part of the kid. "You make many assumptions and assertions. Can you prove them without resort to a gun?"
Nevah!
While outwardly impressive, that's actually a pretty lame question. We can grant the existence of moral difficulties associated with the religion practiced in the middle east, but so what?
Is that the fault of "religion," or is it the fault of "that religion?" Are the tenets of that religion uniformly "immoral," or are there just parts of it that are "immoral?" Are the moral difficulties attached to all practitioners, or just some of them?
It is not logically valid to suggest that because Islam is bad (an assertion that is itself open to legitimate dispute), therefore religion is bad.
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.