The point I was trying to make was that these "rights" are an artifact of the human mind in the case of "no controlling legal authority". That does not mean I disagree with the "right" only that Albert Gore may have a different view than we do.
Posted on 03/10/2002 11:53:20 AM PST by JediGirl
Common Creationist ArgumentsMorality |
|
The subject of religious morality is a thorny one. Believers of Judaism, Christianity or Islam bristle at any suggestion that their religions may justify or encourage violence, yet they all must deal with histories of incredible violence, many of which are enshrined in their own holy books. Worse yet, they actually have the gall to vilify atheism, secularism, and humanism as the source of immorality!
My position on the morality of Islam, Christianity, or Judaism is simple: most modern followers are somewhat moderate, and I don't have any problem with them. They balance their ideologies against the values of secular humanism, and they come up with a compromise that, I suspect, works very well for them. Moreover, most of them are not even aware of the sheer extent of the violence and hatred in the Old Testament (see my Reference page on Old Testament violence, and you may be surprised).
However, the so-called "far-right" fundamentalists are a different breed; they have generally studied the Old Testament, and they don't see anything wrong with it. They will look you straight in the eye and insist that there was nothing wrong with butchering the women and children and little babies of Jericho, or that it was "just" and "righteous" to murder the babies of Egypt for the sins of their fathers!
To forgive or defend such atrocities is to proclaim that one's ideology is more "real" and more important than human life itself, and therein lies the seeds of violent fanaticism. When faced with such delusional zealotry, most people simply try to walk away, under the assumption that it is best to let sleeping dogs lie. Most people let them spout their hatred towards atheists, humanists, "pagans", heretics, and everyone else who doesn't share their ideology, because most people don't want to get into an argument about religion.
However, I am not "most people". I believe that if a zealot wants to start an argument about the "immorality" of secularism, he should expect criticism of his own belief system in return. I believe that zealots should not be buoyed by the apparent reluctance of others to confront them directly. I believe that religious beliefs are not a sacred shield against criticism, and that if someone defends atrocities, they should be held accountable for that, just as Nazi sympathizers and apologists are vilified in society today. And so, in addition to my Biblical Morality pages, I present the following arguments.
Please note that when I say "God" in the following arguments, I'm referring specifically to God as envisioned by the fundamentalists, and as described in the Old Testament. Their God is hopefully not the same as your God, if you have one.
"How can you defend the morality of evolution theory? Could anything be more ruthless than "survival of the fittest"?
Evolution theory identifies natural selection as an existing mechanism in nature. It did not invent it. It does not praise it. It does not pass any kind of moral judgement upon it. Evolution theory only describes it. Don't shoot the messenger.
"How can you defend secularism, with its drug abuse, divorce rate, pornography, and materialism?
Don't be ridiculous. Secularism has nothing to do with drug abuse or divorce rates. In fact, the largest opium producer in the world is the Taliban religious theocracy in Afghanistan, and in the 18th century, it was evangelical Britain. Furthermore, there is no evidence whatsoever that divorce rates are higher among atheists than they are among Christians, and in fact, the only attempt to produce statistical evidence for such a difference (a Barna Research study) backfired on its Christian backers: it found that Christians were more likely to divorce than atheists!
As for pornography and materialism, you have yet to produce evidence that either is bad. Pornography is merely the open expression of human sexuality, and while it may offend your prudish Victorian sensibilities, it is a victimless "crime" and there is nothing immoral about it. Violent pornography or child pornography is immoral, but it is the violence and statutory rape that makes it immoral, not the fact that it is pornography. Statutory rape is immoral regardless of whether it is filmed, and excessive violence in films is immoral regardless of whether sex is involved. As for materialism, it is merely the notion that the material world is all that exists; it is the underlying philosophy of science, and it is hardly immoral. You are obviously confusing it with greed, and quite frankly, given the history of church greed (particularly in the Catholic church, not to mention modern television evangelists), you throw stones from a glass house.
In short, there is no evidence whatsoever for a difference in ethical behaviour between atheists and Christians, despite the incredible volume of slanderous bigoted remarks made about atheists by Christian preachers across the world every Sunday. Your religion does not make you better than me. Get over it.
"Secularism condones hedonism: if it feels good, do it. Where's the moral self-restraint?"
Strawman. It's not "if it feels good, do it". It's "if it feels good and you're not hurting anyone, feel free to do it". And while that may offend your masochistic values of self-denial, it is not immoral. Self-restraint is admirable if it is employed toward some useful goal, such as not over-eating in order to preserve one's health or not succumbing to anger in a difficult situation. However, pointless self-restraint is simply stupid, and avoiding pleasure simply for the sake of self-denial is definitely pointless.
In fact, the world could use a little more hedonism and a little less ideology. When Hitler seized power and began to exterminate Jews, did he derive any physical pleasure from it? No, he was fighting for a twisted ideology. When terrorists plant car bombs, do they derive any physical pleasure from it? No, they are fighting for an ideology. Does anyone derive any physical pleasure from war? No, the soldiers fight and kill for ideologies and nation-states, and the politicians order them to do it for the same reasons, or in some cases, out of lust for power.
Even rape is not motivated by pleasure. More than half of all sexual assaults do not even involve a complete act of copulation. Many rapists can't do it at all; they are impotent, or they have reduced sexual function. Furthermore, sex with a struggling victim can't possibly provide the same kind of physical pleasure as sex with a willing partner. Rapists get off not on physical pleasure, but on their ability to dominate and humiliate their victims. They get off on their victims' pain and anguish, and physical pleasure quite frankly has little or nothing to do with it.
Many other social problems such as drug abuse and adultery and drug abuse are also not motivated by physical pleasure. People become drug abusers because of poor self-esteem and poor judgement, not physical pleasure. Anyone with even the most vague knowledge of drugs will know that while they may provide a short-term "hit", they eventually burn out the pleasure centres in your brain, thus robbing you of all life's physical pleasures. In the long term, drugs reduce physical pleasure. And what of adultery? Adultery is motivated by the excitement of its illicit nature and perhaps by dissatisfaction with one's marriage. However, to put it bluntly, another woman's vagina will not feel a whole lot different than your wife's vagina. To put it even more bluntly, the vagina of the most beautiful woman in the world won't feel any better than the vagina of an unattractive woman. Men stray for myriad psychological reasons, none of which have anything to do with physical pleasure. In the end, adultery is a relationship problem, not a hedonist problem.
You may find that my defense of hedonism offends your sensibilities. If so, ask yourself whether the world would be a more peaceful and harmonious place if people simply pursued their own physical pleasure instead of fighting over nation-states and ideologies. Whether it be good food, a good massage, or good sex, physical pleasure in and of itself harms no one. However, its demonization by religious zealots has harmed a lot of people.
"You're being unfair to the Bible. You mention all of the worst parts, but what about the good parts?" [This is usually followed by a list of nice quotes from the Bible, such as "Thou Shalt Not Kill" or "Love Thy Neighbour"]"
You can't cancel out evil words or deeds by saying something nice. If your neighbour beats his wife but tells you that he abhors violence, would you believe him? Of course not! So if God murders and tortures millions of people but tells you that he's a "God of Love", why do you believe him? Al Capone once said that "you can get more with a kind word and a gun than you can with a kind word." He was talking about his own ruthless approach to life, but he could just as easily have been talking about the Old Testament God.
Yes, God has a few kind words in the Bible. However, like Al Capone, he bundles every kind word with threats of violence, and then he ruthlessly demonstrates his capacity for violence, so that you will take those threats seriously. From his genocidal bloodlust in the Great Flood to his massacres at Sodom and Gomorrah, his infanticide in Egypt, his ethnic cleansing of Canaan, and his violent persecution of heretics, God demonstrated stunning cruelty and ruthlessness all throughout the Old Testament. And with his promise to torture unbelievers for all eternity, he attempts to enslave us through fear of even greater horrors. You can't make up for that kind of evil by simply saying a few nice things.
"You're wrong about the Bible. In [insert passage name here], it says quite clearly that [God never changes, God is perfect, God is just, God is merciful, whatever]. So much for your claim that [God changes, God is not perfect, God is unjust, God is unmerciful, whatever]"
Adolf Hitler claimed that he was perfect too. Get it? It doesn't matter whether God describes himself as perfect! What matters are his actions, and his actions speak for themselves. He commits all sorts of atrocities that are classified as acts of evil when committed by a human. Unlike moral relativists like you, I insist that the definition of evil is absolute. Evil is evil, regardless of who does it. Adolf was evil for his brutality, and God is evil for his brutality. God punishes children for the sins of their fathers. He murders indiscriminately: women, children, babies in their cribs. And after all of that, Jesus claims that he is a God of "love". In other words, God can change (or at least, claim to), he is imperfect, he is unjust, and he is unmerciful. The fact that his propaganda denies it proves nothing.
"God is all knowing and all powerful. We cannot judge God."
Power = righteousness? Wrong. The growth of the secular humanist democratic state is the direct result of people finally realizing that power does not confer unquestioned moral authority. That's why we replaced "rulers" with "public servants".
Evil is evil, no matter who does it. Kings, queens, emperors, and gods must observe the same ethics as everyone else, so if we can judge Adolf Hitler for mass murder, we can judge God for the same thing.
"The massacres of the Old Testament were righteous because God rewarded his innocent victims (such as children and babies) with an eternity of bliss. Only the truly guilty were truly punished, and they only got what they deserved."
Two-part rebuttal:
#1: So massacres are OK because innocent victims go to Heaven, eh? Thank you for demonstrating so clearly that I am 100% correct. Your religious beliefs do help you rationalize atrocities such as baby-killing! I have always maintained that the chief problem with Judaism and its offshoots is that it contains justifications for murder, warfare, and crimes against humanity, and you have just proven me right.
#2: So sinners get what they deserve in Hell, eh? How can anyone possibly deserve an eternity of torture? Even if you tortured ten people to death, their combined suffering would be a drop in the ocean compared to an eternity in Hell. And what of people who simply worship the wrong gods? Do they "deserve" an etenity of torture too? Is this God's "perfect justice"? If our justice systems were as harsh as God's "perfect justice", spitting on the sidewalk would be a death penalty offense.
"What gives us the right to judge anyone, much less God? Only a higher power has the right to pass judgement."
One word: Why?
Why does "higher power" confer the right to judge? Why should the powerful be exempt from judgement? Why can't the weak judge the strong?
I am nauseated by the common belief that judgement is based on a hierarchy of power rather than a rational, objective, analytical process. I am sickened by the common belief that standards of right and wrong should be unilaterally chosen by the strong and then imposed upon the weak through force, rather than being decided by the weak themselves, through reason, sympathy for others, and a genuine desire to make the world a happier place.
Throughout history, it has always been the weak who suffer from evil, whether it be Hitler's evil, Stalin's evil, Torquemada's evil, Columbus' evil, or God's evil. Who, then, is best qualified to judge what is and isn't evil, if not the weak? Who but the victim has the "right" to judge?
The authoritarian mindset betrayed by your argument is nothing more than medievalism, and it has no place in the modern era. Didn't you ever notice that a criminal suspect is judged by twelve of his peers? Not by a king, not by a bishop, and not by a pope, but by his own peers. Didn't you ever think to ask why?
"Jesus died on the Cross for our sins. Doesn't this prove that God truly loves us? He sent his own son to die for us! The only way to Heaven is through the Salvation of Jesus Christ. His perfect love ... [yadda yadda yadda]"
Tell me something about this "Salvation" of yours. Salvation implies a threat, correct? You must be saved from something. So who or what are we supposedly being saved from? God himself. What's the danger from which we need salvation? An eternity of agonizing torture, courtesy of a "loving" God. Call it God, call it Jesus, call it the Holy Trinity or the Heavenly Host, but whatever the name, the result is the same: he's supposedly "saving" us from himself.
Quite frankly, salvation doesn't mean a whole lot when the person "saving" you is the same person who's threatening you! The notion of Christian salvation is quite frankly the most incredibly audacious example of spin-doctoring in human history. If a mugger holds a gun to your head and says that out of his love for you, he will "save" you from his own violence as long as you give him your money, would you think him wondrously merciful? Would you be glad you ran into him? Or would you think that he's a deranged, violent sociopath?
|
Sarcasm is beneath you.
Also, God sacrificed himself, not a third party and God was the only sacrifice that would work, a "perfect" sacrifice, the only sacrifice that would satisfy God's call for perfect justice. God did not visit harm on anyone else, thus your reasoning is flawed and your basic premise is in error.
I can see at least 2 problems with your scenario. First, the assumption that all humans are guilty. Guilty of what?
I will therefore assume you agree that God requires perfect justice and God is merciful. Your problems are not with my scenario. You problem is with God. Argue with him if you like. The assumption is logical given the nature of mankind.
Are you referring to Original Sin? That's another very flawed parable, IMO. Basically we're guilty just for existing as humans in the first place.
You are only partially correct, Original sinned caused our fall from grace, making all of us less than perfect. Unless you know of a perfect person?? If so let me know. Therefore, we are all imperfect, flawed, sinful, use any adjective you like. Unless, you can prove you or anyone else is perfect, the assumption is logically sustainable. Therefore the assumption until proven otherwise, is correct.
Well excuuuuuuuuuuuuuse me for living!
Exactly God's point and the idea behind his perfect mercy and the topic we are discussing. I actually believe you are catching on.
I accept no guilt for the so-called crime of merely existing, nor for anything my distant ancestors may have done.
As pointed out above (unless you're perfect), this statement is not at issue. Therefore, not a valid argument. God is not holding you accountable for anyone else's problems.
The second problem is the scapegoat. Just thinking off the top of my head, a rigorously just yet merciful response would simply entail forgiveness of whatever actual sins we as individuals commit, and for which we truly repent & try to pay back the damages.
So many flaws; where to start. First, perfect justice requires perfect punishment. Someone must pay for the crime or else it wouldn't be perfect justice. God cannot deny himself. Second, as pointed out above, there is no "scapegoat", God needed to satisfy perfect mercy and he did it with himself, once again no third party involved. Third, repentence is good and God accepts that, but someone still must pay for the crime or perfect justice would not be served.
I think the whole idea of "mercy" is based on not enforcing one's right to restitution or revenge.
Nothing to do with either of these, mercy is the setting aside of punishment. Restitution and revenge are not in play here. God will set aside our deserved punishment because he is merciful, but this only satisfies half of the equation. God must also satisfy perfect justice. Someone must suffer the consequences of sin.
It's simple, to the point, and deals with the debt the criminal owes to the victim.
But fails to answer the question of perfect justice. God cannot deny himself. Therefore this is flawed thinking, we are not discussing debt, but justice (someone must be punished) and in God's mercy, the transference of that punishment, in essence to himself.
W.K.
Then ... where's the sacrifice? I thought I understood all of this, but I'm getting confused.
The point I was trying to make was that these "rights" are an artifact of the human mind in the case of "no controlling legal authority". That does not mean I disagree with the "right" only that Albert Gore may have a different view than we do.
Paragraph 13 end of second and beginning of 3rd line should read "God needed to satisfy perfect justice and he did it with himself...
Got to sign off for the night; enjoy.
W.K.
Evolution theory identifies natural selection as an existing mechanism in nature. It did not invent it. It does not praise it. It does not pass any kind of moral judgement upon it. Evolution theory only describes it. Don't shoot the messenger.
Nobody's shooting the messenger. However, you have delivered the death blow to Objectivism, and on libertarian ideas based on Rand's ideas. Objectivism, after all, prides itself on a strict adherence to operating within the bounds of objective reality. However, objective reality includes "survival of the fittest," or "might makes right." The problem with an insistence on "rationally-derived absolutes," such as "it is wrong to initiate force," is that such claims simply cannot survive contact with survival of the fittest.
If the principle of non-initiation of force is indeed absolute, the origins of its absoluteness cannot come from objective reality, as defined by Rand and friends -- the counter-examples are too numerous.
Skipping to the end of the argument, the choices boil down to "because God said so;" or "the moral absolutes defined by Rand, or libertarians who follow her reasoning, cannot be obtioned through application of reason alone."
Rand (and many FR libertarians) reject God. As such, their moral reasoning cannot be supported by anything other than "because I said so."
And I had thought that religion started when the first Knave encountered the first Fool.
Well for those who believe evolution is not immoral let's remember what the basis of it is: survival of the fittest, or in other words, might makes right. The obscenity of this is plainly displayed by the following quote from Darwin:
With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.
Darwin, "The Descent of Man", Chapter V.
It's not about justice, it's about Love, but of course, you would never understand. It's about the kind of love a parent has towards a wayward child.
A perfect and sinless man, who also had to be God. As St. Anselm put it, the God-Man.
Her youth is what I was pointing out, but she did not deserve my scorn, which is why I retracted my remark.
Sounds just like Marx's "Religion is the opiat of the people." Politics is out to make anything and anyone its handmaiden--but true religion, that is a genuine love relationship to God (and therefore others), is handmaiden only to her Husband, the Lord Jesus. That is why historically the most devout (and politically harmless) Christians have often died at the hands of ruthless rulers--and it continues today--look at Sudan or China...
Jesus Himself was killed due to politics (the Romans trying to appease corrupt local political/religious leaders...), so what else is new? Yet God in spite of the most heiniously evil act in history, brought about the greatest good...
Should a person who steps on an ant be prosecuted for murder?
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.