Fresh-sown moonstone

Avedon Carol points us to Maha's thoughtful and thought-provoking series on The Wisdom of Doubt. This, from Part V, is dead on:

The statistics suggest that more people “believe in” the Ten Commandments than actually know what the Ten Commandments say. And I don’t care what religious tradition you call your own; just “believing in” something that you don’t practice or understand or follow is crap. It’s not even religion. It’s an idea of religion, but not religion itself, except on a very primitive level.

I think many Americans regard the Ten Commandments as something like a tribal totem. They want it placed in institutions of power, like schools and courthouses, as a symbol of their tribal dominance. Think of it as territorial marking.

* * * * * * * * *

Amy Sullivan has, again, written that Amy Sullivan article, this time for TIME magazine: "The Origins of the God Gap."

The totemic/tribal/territorial function of religious symbols and rhetoric that Maha identifies is just one of the things missing from Sullivan's latest variation on her theme. Her so-called "God Gap" has little to do with the "faith-friendliness" she calls for, that's merely garnish. It has to do, rather, with two sometimes-distinct, sometimes-overlapping subjects that provide the actual substance beneath all this God-talk: abortion and race.

I'll get back to this later.

* * * * * * * * *

From the National Community Reinvestment Coalition study, (.pdf) "Income Is No Shield Against Racial Differences in Lending:

NCRC observes striking racial disparities in high-cost lending. If a consumer is a minority, particularly an African American or a Hispanic, the consumer is most at risk of receiving a poorly underwritten high-cost loan. In addition, middle-class or upper-class status does not shield minorities from receiving dangerous high-cost loans. In fact, NCRC observes that racial differences in lending increase as income levels increase. In other words, middle- and upper-income (MUI) minorities are more likely relative to their MUI white counterparts to receive high-cost loans than low- and moderate-income (LMI) minorities are relative to LMI whites.

High income and high credit scores won't help you if you're BWB (borrowing while black).

* * * * * * * * *

Like a library has just burned down: Umpire Shag Crawford Dies. Shag's sister was a wonderful lady who used to make sure I had a home-cooked meal on a regular basis. I met her brother a few times, and once managed, years ago, to prompt Shag and his son, NL umpire Jerry Crawford, into a rambling discussion of the best pitchers they had seen from behind the plate. (Award-winning lefty bloggers take note, Shag's highest praise that day was for Sandy Koufax.)

More here, here and here.

* * * * * * * * *

Scarecrow at Firedoglake notes that Bush apologist Michael Gerson really isn't in a position to be lecturing others on morality.

The lecture in question is Gerson's Washington Post op-ed, "What Atheists Can't Answer. It's a useful reminder that reading Nietzsche as the final word doesn't always lead to a shallow, adolescent atheism. Sometimes it leads to a shallow, adolescent theism.

* * * * * * * * *

• Dogs Against Romney (via)

• Why I love TBogg.

• One more reason that Everybody's Hometown is a very cool place to live: "Media, Pa. -- America's First Fair Trade Town."

Comments

[Jeff]

Amy Sullivan fails to point out that those "People of Faith" who elected Carter because he would not tell a lie, kicked him in the back because he would not tell a lie.

[the opoponax]

I think the stats re the 10 Commandments mainly show something akin to my general hypothesis about Americans and religion:

Most Americans aren't very religious at all; they just see religion as a general "virtue" and want other people to think they are.

[Ethan]

FYI only: I plugged you/your blog here:

http://ethmar.com/ethan/articles/2007/07/13/differently_christian

Naturally, your top item in this post summed up in 1 paragraph what it took me a magnum opus to express. Gahhh.

[Mithras]

Fred, if you have Tuesday nights off, you should come into town and join us for Drinking Liberally sometime.

[Drak Pope]

Why do dogs hate Mitt Romney?

[Jesurgislac]

Why do dogs hate Mitt Romney?

Because:

Before beginning the drive, Mitt Romney put Seamus, the family's hulking Irish setter, in a dog carrier and attached it to the station wagon's roof rack. He'd built a windshield for the carrier, to make the ride more comfortable for the dog.
Then Romney put his boys on notice: He would be making predetermined stops for gas, and that was it. The ride was largely what you'd expect with five brothers, ages 13 and under, packed into a wagon they called the ''white whale.''
As the oldest son, Tagg Romney commandeered the way-back of the wagon, keeping his eyes fixed out the rear window, where he glimpsed the first sign of trouble. ''Dad!'' he yelled. ''Gross!'' A brown liquid was dripping down the back window, payback from an Irish setter who'd been riding on the roof in the wind for hours.
As the rest of the boys joined in the howls of disgust, Romney coolly pulled off the highway and into a service station. There, he borrowed a hose, washed down Seamus and the car, then hopped back onto the highway. It was a tiny preview of a trait he would grow famous for in business: emotion-free crisis management.

After reading that, I hate Mitt Romney.

[Zingo Stertch]

"It was a tiny preview of a trait he would grow famous for in business:..."

Starting shit? Bu-dum-CHI!

Ok, it wasn't great.

[iflurry]

From Michael Gerson's essay:

"So the dilemma is this: How do we choose between good and bad instincts? Theism, for several millennia, has given one answer: We should cultivate the better angels of our nature because the God we love and respect requires it. While many of us fall tragically short, the ideal remains.

Atheism provides no answer to this dilemma. It cannot reply: "Obey your evolutionary instincts" because those instincts are conflicted. "Respect your brain chemistry" or "follow your mental wiring" don't seem very compelling either. It would be perfectly rational for someone to respond: "To hell with my wiring and your socialization, I'm going to do whatever I please." C.S. Lewis put the argument this way: "When all that says 'it is good' has been debunked, what says 'I want' remains.""

I can't stand arguments like the one above. Atheism is somehow wrong because it doesn't provide any moral dogma to replace the fear of God? That's like saying a person shouldn't eat a steak because there's no vitamin C in it.

Maybe people should give up Christianity because it doesn't explain the internal combustion engine.

@iflurry: "Maybe people should give up Christianity because it doesn't explain the internal combustion engine."

But! See:
http://brneurosci.org/godcars.html

In all seriousness, I would say "atheism is wrong FOR A PARTICULAR PERSON when it doesn't provide satisfying answers to the questions that are important to that person." And I would say the same of any other guiding mental/spiritual/philosophical principle.

On another thread, I mentioned that the mark of a good reference librarian is finding the answer to the questions that people are really asking. A corollary to that is not insisting that they accept the answers to all the questions they are NOT asking.

[hapax]

*sigh* That was I @ 9:30. Firefox doesn't wish to remember who I am, anymore.

[Drak Pope]

After reading that, I hate Mitt Romney.

Dang. His dog was liquefied on top of his car and its raw mushy corpse oozed down the back window and he wasn't taken aback at all? He reminds me of the current President of the USA.

[Vermic]

I can't stand arguments like the one above. Atheism is somehow wrong because it doesn't provide any moral dogma to replace the fear of God? That's like saying a person shouldn't eat a steak because there's no vitamin C in it.

What I find distasteful about arguments like Gerson's is that the conclusion seems to be "You should believe in God, regardless of whether you really think he exists." Intellectual honesty or the search for truth, these things are immaterial; what matters is what's useful for society. And if you need to deceive yourself to maintain that, or to avoid pursuing lines of thought that might prove troubling, then so be it.

I can't go along with that. Look, if we indeed occupy a godless universe with no inherent purpose or morality (and being an atheist, I do in fact essentially believe this); if human behavior is ultimately rooted in evolutionary wiring and brain chemistry; if the entire universe is destined for heat death 10 billion years hence, swallowing every last trace of human endeavor and achievement with it -- it may all be very depressing to contemplate, but IF it's all in fact true, then that's useful for us to know. Even if it's unpleasant, it's still useful to know. It doesn't help us to hide our heads in the sand because we fear the societal consequences.

[Reverend Ref]

Holy Cow! You got to eat and have cool conversations with the Crawfords??

My life is SO incomplete.

[mcc]

In all seriousness, I would say "atheism is wrong FOR A PARTICULAR PERSON when it doesn't provide satisfying answers to the questions that are important to that person." And I would say the same of any other guiding mental/spiritual/philosophical principle.

...I dunno, I can think of a longish list of ways of judging a principle that are more important than whether or not it's satisfying. For example, whether it's true.

(I get what you're saying and I don't disagree with it, I'm only nitpicking the way you chose to say it. I think a lot of the problems we see in the world stem from people's tendencies to choose to think and act in the ways that are satisfying, rather than the ones which are right.)

[Elvis Elvisberg]

As to the Ten Commandments, did you see Colbert's interview of Lynn Westmoreland? Congressman Westmoreland exemplifies the phenomenon you describe here-- deep belief, total ignorance, about the Ten Commandments.

The debate over placing the Commandments in public view is really not about the content of the Ten Comandments (or any religious teachings) at all-- it's about claiming turf, prejudice, sanctimony, and parochialism, and the majority asserting its right to ram its preferences up the minority's ass. So it makes sense for a political movement based on What Would the Pharisees Do to pursue it.

[nieciedo]

@Vermic:
...Intellectual honesty or the search for truth, these things are immaterial; what matters is what's useful for society....
Look, if we indeed occupy a godless universe with no inherent purpose or morality...if the entire universe is destined for heat death 10 billion years hence, swallowing every last trace of human endeavor and achievement with it -- it may all be very depressing to contemplate, but IF it's all in fact true, then that's useful for us to know...It doesn't help us to hide our heads in the sand because we fear the societal consequences.

If your beliefs are correct, then what value is there in "intellectual honesty and the search for truth?" What value is there in life itself?

Without some kind of social order to provide security and stability, "intellectual honest and the search for truth" are worthless. Human beings are social animals: it is society that creates and defines us, and there what is good for society is automatically good for us and trumps what may be good for an individual. Societal consequences are quite important and need to be taken into consideration.

If you beliefs are correct, how would the information of the meaningless of life and the universe be useful to know?

[the opoponax]

The debate over placing the Commandments in public view is really not about the content of the Ten Comandments

It's really about the Ten Commandments as religious talisman. Which is yet another one to add to the list of "Ways the fundigelicals are clinging to some kind of obsolete pagan concept of God."

I say "obsolete", by the way, not because paganism is obsolete (I am one), but because even us modern day pagans have generally moved beyond most of the particularly heathenish approaches of the fundigelicals (magic words, religious objects as talismans, fire and brimstone) are obsolete even within the pagan community.

[the opoponax]

and can we please have the Why Atheism Is Correct And The Rest Of You Fools Believe In Santa Claus/Fairy Tales/Outright Lies limited to that thread over at Pandagon I'm tactfully keeping away from? The Gerson stuff is being dissected pretty thoroughly over there, and I really can't bear to have my two favorite blog haunts both swept up in the "nuh-uh!" "yes-huh!" debate at the same time.

[jeffk]

The problem with thinking about human nature is, of course, that the different aspects of human nature don't manifest themselves to the same degree in everyone, and therefore a single solution doesn't work for everyone.

Gerson's justification for theism seems to me to be perfectly valid for the large portion of the population that can't be good on their own, of which he and the rest of the pundit class clearly belong. If they can't be good on their own but *can* be good with an external justification, that's much better than not being able to be good at all (ref Cheney, for example).

On the other hand, using his same argument - if you accept that there are people who can be good *without* being theists, and you accept that being good is better than not being good, are those "good atheists" somehow superior to the theists that can't be good on their own?

(Of course, there's also the definition of "good" to be considered, but my brain is twisty enough for one post.)

[Rebecca Borgstrom]

Mr. or Ms. nieciedo,

If we indeed occupy a godless universe etcetera, as Vermic hypothesizes,

. . .

You ask why this would be useful to know.

And my answer diverges.

The answer that's probably more reasonable to give is my own answer, which is that knowing that would make us stronger and more good. Because it is in facing the vastness and learning not to get so hung up on little details (like whether everything we do is going to be swallowed into eternal emptiness in ten billion years or whether we have souls) that we temper ourselves and learn to love.

That's a more reasonable answer because it's closer to what you said---it's just . . . you know, how I kind of assume things would be.

Some part of me also wants to give you the logic that backs it up, which is something like this. To conform to truth is a structural social good. Dishonesty in method makes dishonesty in ends; it weaves itself through the fabric of the whole, rendering it corrupt, weak, and venal. It is also a thing with a cost: the more energy we spend on maintaining lies for ourselves, the less energy we have to spend feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, healing the sick and the heartsick, and ushering tyrants from their thrones. Cheaper in human labor just to face the truth and realize that it's really not that bad.

See, the thing is, there's nothing to be afraid of in a universe without soul. I don't think we even *do* fear that.

What we fear is losing a cruel-thorned image we've created in our heads.

The universe has whatever it has, and it is as like a soul as it is, and it is as unlike a soul as it is, and it's pretty darned amazing, in the end, that this bountiful void is here at all. But if we make up a concept of what the soul and meaning and purpose and God of the universe *should* be like, we start to fear that it isn't there after all. We make up our own reason to hate the darkness. And here I don't mean to say that there is nothing like a soul in the universe; but rather, that there isn't such a soul as to be afraid of it not being there. There isn't such a God as to say, "Well, if this were a Godless universe, how terrible and degenerate it would be." There's only whatever is, and whatever we imagine. The kind of thing that can be absent from the world is mostly what we imagine.

I don't think it serves any purpose to imagine that it's bad to know the truth. If there is good in your concept of society, or in your (presumptive) concept of God, then it must either remain when we assume Vermic's hypothesis, or it must go away; in either case, the truth is good.

It's good to want people to find a way to live together happily. It's good to want that so much that you'd be willing to paint yourself in falsehoods for it. But I don't think in the end that falsehoods really do that. There are many cases where saying a given truth---such as bursting in on an elementary school arithmetic class to say, ". . . unless the ring is NON-ABELIAN!" while trumpets blare---is a bit unnecessary, but I don't think falsehood's a good strategy, and willful ignorance is, I think, the root of all our evils.

Rebecca

[chris y]

What would be the reaction if some politician was asked on television about the Ten Commandments and they responded, "Which version?"

[Jeff]

Tying a number of threads together, I saw an article on how "passion of the Christ" did so well at the box office, whereas other fundy movies haven't (did you know there was a movie based on the Gospel of John? I didn't). The article kind of wondered all over the place, but I think it's pretty simple.

Tying a number of threads together, I saw an article on how "passion of the Christ" did so well at the box office, whereas other fundy movies haven't (did you know there was a movie based on the Gospel of John? I didn't). The article kind of wondered all over the place, but I think it's pretty simple.

These XINOS (Christians in Name Only) love torture. (That's why the current crop of Republiscums are offering "double Gitmos".) They flocked to see blood, gore and violence. Anyone who attacked PotC was obviously anti-Christian.

Hopefully the Real True Christians (the ones who follow Christ's message of love and tolerance) will shine a bright light on how these monsters don't represent them. Barack Obama has made a start. We'll see if anyone follows up on this.

[McJulie]

Gerson's justification for theism seems to me to be perfectly valid for the large portion of the population that can't be good on their own

I don't think so. I think his justification for theism is a weak and poorly considered argument, but it's one that is incredibly common because the same quirk of brain that causes people to tend to believe in supernatural entities also causes them to believe that their belief in supernatural entities affects their moral behavior in ways it simply does not.

So, the Christian might think to himself, "I am a good person because of my Christian beliefs," and might go on from there to say, "Therefore, I am not sure I can believe that people with other beliefs are good people." But since his premise is wrong, any conclusion based on it is also wrong.

Sometimes the moral philosophy of a religion inspires an adherent to better behavior, true, but atheists also have moral philosophy. The moral philosophy is only coincidentally related to the supernatural beliefs, even though it's often expressed in terms of cause and effect.

Because God loves us, love your neighbor as yourself. Because there is no God and no immortality of the soul and we live for a short time and that's it, love your neighbor as yourself. Because the loa are with us, love your neighbor as yourself. Because otherwise you are stuck on the wheel of Karma, love your neighbor as yourself. Because you have been Touched by His Noodly Appendage, love your neighbor as yourself.

What we fear is losing a cruel-thorned image we've created in our heads.

No, I think we're afraid of death. And we're afraid of it because we all know it's coming, and at the same time, we know nothing about it. Humans fear the unknown more than they fear just about anything else.

[cjmr's husband]

These XINOS love torture. They flocked to see blood, gore and violence

True, but when comparing The Jesus Chainsaw Massacre to e.g. the adaptations of the Worst Novels Ever Written, you have to take into account that it was actually made by someone who actually knows how to make a movie. Having seen none of the movies in question, I can only assume that the ones that Mad Max was responsible for are better made.

For the Catholics who wanted an excuse to see the movie, it also had the approval of the (pre-dalek) Pope; why this didn't keep the fundagelicals away in droves is something I do not understand.

My opinion on the subject? If you make a movie about Jesus, and your lead actor is struck by lightning during filming (twice!), then the Pope's review should not be considered infallible. (the word "apocryphal" comes to mind, in fact)

Mel should make a movie from one of the gory wipe-out-your-neighbors stories from the Old Testament. He'll make more than 30 pieces of silver from that...

[the opoponax]

whereas other fundy movies haven't (did you know there was a movie based on the Gospel of John? I didn't). The article kind of wondered all over the place, but I think it's pretty simple.

While I largely agree with your actual point, I think there's a much easier answer: said other movies don't actually show up in theaters, so they don't technically have "box office" rankings.

Which is both snarky and not. The fundie films at the "movie version of the Gospel of John" level are only ever actually available through serious Christian insider sources (religious bookstores, i'm guessing?). Which again gives the lie to the idea that there's this great Christianist hegemony that's going to take over the world. If there was, they'd be able to get their movies into theatrical release, or at least on the shelves at Blockbuster.

[cjmr's husband]

< snark>if it wasn't for the Evil International Bankers in control of Hollywierd, we'd be able to get OUR movies for REAL AMERICANS into the theaters < /snark>

[Vermic]

If your beliefs are correct, then what value is there in "intellectual honesty and the search for truth?" What value is there in life itself?

I'm not sure I can beat what Rebecca Borgstrom and McJulie have already said on the subject, but here at least is my personal answer to this question. A universe that has no inherent, built-in purpose does not prevent us as free-willed individuals from creating a purpose for our own lives and our own actions. The value of life comes from what we ourselves assign to it, as opposed to being imposed by some outside figure.

I suppose that outlook may seem frightening to some. I personally find it liberating and, in its way, reassuring. But I don't hold that outlook because it's liberating. I hold it because it seems the best match, compared with other philosophies, to life and the universe as I observe it. (There's that intellectual honesty thing again.)

Without some kind of social order to provide security and stability, "intellectual honest and the search for truth" are worthless.

I would argue that the choice is not either/or. Society would not collapse in absence of the belief in divinely ordained moral principles. There are countries in the world today where the demographic is not strongly religious, yet they function just fine.

[hapax]

mcc "..I dunno, I can think of a longish list of ways of judging a principle that are more important than whether or not it's satisfying. For example, whether it's true."

Well, if the questions that are important to you are ones that have verifiably true or false answers ("Is this berry poisonous?" "Is there a statistically significant correlation between canine dimensions and mating strategy?" "Are there weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?") I guess I kind of assumed that "true" should be included in the whole "satisfying" concept. Then again, looking around at some of my fellow humans, I'm probably hopelessly naive and idealistic.

[Tonio]

@Elvis Elvisberg,

I despised the way that defenders of the Roy Moore monument tried to frame the debate as being about morality, not about the First Amendment. The first few Commandments have nothing to do with morality and everything to do with pleasing a jealous deity. And when I hear claims about how our laws are derived from the Commandments, I bang my head against my monitor in frustration.

@Iflurry,

"The fear of God" isn't a moral dogma at all. Humans have a moral sense, a conscience. Vermic may be correct that it comes from evolutionary wiring. For my argument, the source is irrelevant. Part of moral behavior involves listening to that conscience. Now, one might suggest that what people think of as "God" is really a personification of one's conscience. But theistic religions don't allow for metaphorical views of their deities. The notion of Divine Command is about subverting the conscience to the objective of pleasing authority.

[hapax]

Tonio: "But theistic religions don't allow for metaphorical views of their deities. "

They don't? I guess I'm not a theist, then.

Or maybe you're saying that theistic religions don't allow for views of their deities that say they are NOTHING MORE than metaphors. Well, once again... metaphors for what?

If you're saying, "metaphors for human impulses/instincts/concepts/etc.", yea, I guess that most theistic religions aren't too down with saying that there is no such thing as god(s). That's kind of a tautology, though, innit?

"The notion of Divine Command is about subverting the conscience to the objective of pleasing authority."

My goodness. What about the Divine Command to follow your conscience? ("I will write my Law upon their hearts..." etc.)

Tonio, I don't wish to be judgmental, but it seems that the theists you know are very sad and circumscribed people. Either that, or they are very very bad at explaining what they really think.

[Tonio]

@Hapax,

"Or maybe you're saying that theistic religions don't allow for views of their deities that say they are NOTHING MORE than metaphors."

That comes close to my point. I'm suggesting that within the Abrahamic framework of God as an omnimax conscious being, metaphor-only views are not acceptable. (Greek myths were full of personified entities such as Eros and Aeolus, but that was a better fit because the entities were defined as neither all-powerful nor perfect.)

I dislike your choice of words "nothing more." Plenty of people outside of the Abrahamic religions find meaning by thinking of God as a metaphor and not a conscious being. For some it's a sense of universal love, for others it's a personification of their consciences.

"yea, I guess that most theistic religions aren't too down with saying that there is no such thing as god(s). That's kind of a tautology, though, innit?"

I don't know what you mean by tautology. Theistic religions claim to possess universal truth, and I was criticizing the very existence of such claims.

"What about the Divine Command to follow your conscience?"

That still places the priority on what the deity is supposed to want. Which leads to my point below...

"Tonio, I don't wish to be judgmental, but it seems that the theists you know are very sad and circumscribed people. Either that, or they are very very bad at explaining what they really think."

I am not talking about specific theists that I know. I'm talking about the general phenomenon of submitting completely to authority, which is not limited to theism. That submission has the result of suppressing not just the conscience but also the ego. A person can be so focused on what the authority wants that the person doesn't know what he or she wants. There are obviously degrees to this phenomenon, with extreme examples being survivors of torture and children of alcoholics.

[hf]

As usual,* propagandists for religion have asked a valid philosophical question and then moved on to hide the fact that they can't answer it themselves. Science can't prove any morality (although it can do something remarkably similar). Religion answers this lack, according to Gerson, using what looks like the Naturalistic Fallacy and an Argument from Authority. Theologians of course recognize the simple form of Divine Command Theory as a logical fallacy, and have tried to put a good face on a bad argument. But on second glance their version asks us to take it on faith that an answer to this glaring flaw exists somewhere. That doesn't work in math class. If you think an answer to the question means an answer that mere humans can comprehend, then it looks like it's Nietzsche or nothing. Fred, I hope that by "final word" you literally meant the last word. Obviously we can say more, like the fact that Nietzsche was a dick who tried to push his own prejudice along with his philosophy.

Practically speaking, we do have a problem teaching people to behave morally the way I want them to. Most people seem to accept the principle I favor, but those with high "Social Dominance Orientation" scores don't. Once again, though, religion doesn't actually seem to help. If anything, it makes those people worse. The high-SDOs who value religious traditions get self-righteousness without morality. They show more prejudice than the other jerks, and likely commit more violence. In fairness, fear of outsiders probably comes first and causes the "right-wing authoritarian" attitude. (See the last link for a detailed definition.) But to paraphrase C.S. Lewis, we have absolutely no reason to think that religion helps society the way Gerson claims. If anyone really does need threats of an eternal concentration camp to stop them from rampaging around -- if they have such a high "Right-Wing Authoritarian" score that they'd murder innocents and enjoy it if the 'proper authorities' told them to -- that seems like a reason to focus on assuaging the irrational fear that leads to this attitude, perhaps by showing them firsthand how the facts contradict it, instead of trying to patch it by misusing religion.

I want to mention another point. My cat died recently. I naturally wanted to ask why this happened, although of course I knew the cause. I know the sequence of events about as well as I care to. Religion sometimes claims to answer my question. But the smarter religious people don't make this claim, because as usual the answer would rephrase the question -- why should a jerk like the slave-boss** of biblical literalists be the Creator? At most, theism can give you someone to talk to or rage at. That's nice, but it doesn't help philosophy much. The best answer I've found to my real question lies in that Nietzsche-related post of mine.

*I doubt science can explain how "matter" produces consciousness, not in a way that would satisfy a sharp philosopher. Theologians sometimes bring in a "soul" to account for this, and call their world-view superior. So, how does the soul produce consciousness?
**This seems like the best translation for "Lord" as they use the term.

[Matt McIrvin]

Actually, I think that Gospel of John movie did get a (small, brief) theatrical release. At least, I read a newspaper review of it somewhere that would not have happened otherwise. They said it was based on the Good News Bible translation, and suffered from the general lack of poetry of same (I can testify to this--the first Bible I ever owned was a Good News Bible).

[nieciedo]

The more that I read here and on websites like Beliefnet, the more sure I become that atheists and theists are really no more than two sides of the same coin. Moreover, both atheists and theists exist in a symbiotic relationship: they need each other.

To the extent that "religion" is a set of beliefs that puts those who hold them in an elite group and allows them to feel superior to those outside the group, then atheism is -- at least as demonstrated on this blog -- a religion.

Theists need godless heathens to feel superior to as God's elect. Atheists need theists to feel superior to as right-thinking, rational people who see past the lies and delusions eaten up by the masses.

[Tonio]

@Nieciedo,

I define myself as an agnostic pantheist as opposed to an atheist. I hope my earlier posts didn't come across as put-down of theists - both criticized theistic doctrines without making any judgment of the people who follow them. I'm talking about the psychological phenomenon of submission to authority, and the necessary amount of submission for the suppression of one's conscience. (That was the same question that Stanley Milgram's experiments attempted to answer, although Milgram's approach has been criticized as unethical.)

Let me clarify that I see only a minority of theists, namely the extremists, as submitting totally to the God authority. My issue is that the theistic doctrines seem to demand total submission, a demand that I oppose on general principle. That was my point about the first few of the Ten Commandments.

[Jesurgislac]

nieciedo: Atheists need theists to feel superior to as right-thinking, rational people who see past the lies and delusions eaten up by the masses.

No: just no.

I need Fred to provide me with Left Behind Friday fixes. I do not feel myself superior to Fred. There are various other theists of my acquaintance, both virtual and actual, who I'd happily admit to needing, or wanting so much it looks like need.

I do not, however, "need" theists in general, neither to feel myself superior to nor for any other reason.

the opo: and can we please have the Why Atheism Is Correct And The Rest Of You Fools Believe In Santa Claus/Fairy Tales/Outright Lies limited to that thread over at Pandagon I'm tactfully keeping away from?

Bloody hell, I just realized: this makes it all three of my favorite blogs that this thread is percolating out all over on. This is something up with which I will not put. I shall now end a sentence with a proposition: who wants to go out for wine and curry tonight?

[not someone else]

What would be the effect? Well I guess morality would go back to being a cultural tic o hay wait it is lol. Pfeh.

It's likely that some people would feel somewhat disoriented about having what they felt was an objective basis for their life instruction book ripped away, were there proven to be no such thing as deity, but if people here and now are any indication I doubt that many people would notice, and they'd get over it and probably find a different basis for the exact same damn thing.

I don't know, half my gods say survival is paramount, the other half say not to kill people you invite in for tea, and none of that do I consider principles the emotionless, hydrogen-filled universe would ever give a dead rat's ass about, so I don't think I'm much a part of that debate.

[twig]

Me: I just don't get how atheists can spend their time dicking around on the internet, if there's nothing after this.

My friend: I know. You'd think they'd not want to waste a single minute. I mean, I believe in reincarnation - I can watch as much Animal Planet as I want!

[nieciedo]

@Tonio:

I define myself as an agnostic pantheist as opposed to an atheist.

I would put myself hesitantly in the same category. I would consider myself a panentheist and I do not believe that the existence or nature of God can be rationally or scientifically known or proven -- but I have my beliefs.

I'm talking about the psychological phenomenon of submission to authority, and the necessary amount of submission for the suppression of one's conscience. (That was the same question that Stanley Milgram's experiments attempted to answer, although Milgram's approach has been criticized as unethical.)

As a liberal and a Jew, I believe in the absolute equality and infinite dignity of each and every human person. But observing society today and studying history -- not mention biology -- I am becoming more and more convinced that the majority of the human race are by their very nature -- genetic? psychological? both? -- submissive and need to submit to an authority figure. I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with authority itself -- if legitimately constituted by the consent of the governed and freely submitted to without coercion. I would look forward to the possible evolution of our species where the drive to seek dominance and the need to submit would be eradicated, but I think that's a long time coming.

As it is now, most people are sheep. I might even be willing to class myself in that category. I'm certainly not a Type A leader and I'm uncomfortable with too much responsibility. And I'm well aware of my fascination/fetishization of certain authority figures, my Napoleonic memorabilia collection being a prime example.

[nieciedo]

@ Jesu:

I do not, however, "need" theists in general, neither to feel myself superior to nor for any other reason.

I was speaking in generalities and I know there are always exceptions. I figured that you, for example, have men to feel superior to.

:-)

[Jesurgislac]

I figured that you, for example, have men to feel superior to.

Woah. Fred's a woman? I knew there was a reason I liked her! ;-)

[Tonio]

"As a liberal and a Jew, I believe in the absolute equality and infinite dignity of each and every human person."

I share that belief.

"But observing society today and studying history -- not mention biology -- I am becoming more and more convinced that the majority of the human race are by their very nature -- genetic? psychological? both? -- submissive and need to submit to an authority figure."

I'm no scientist and I don't know enough about either field to say for sure. I desperately hope that your conviction is not the case, at least for me, because I abhor the idea of having that kind of vulnerability that others could exploit.

"I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with authority itself -- if legitimately constituted by the consent of the governed and freely submitted to without coercion."

I see that type of authority as a mutually beneficial relationship for the governors and the governed. I don't see that mutual benefit with theistic doctrines. Theism claims that gods issue orders to humans, who will face judgment after death based on whether they follow those orders. But the only evidence for the gods or the judgments is the claims themselves. Hypothetically, someone with the "drive to seek dominance" could make up orders and claim that these came from gods. And realistically, someone who honestly believed that their gods have issued orders for humanity could end up dominating others out of a sense of divine mission.

[Nick Lamb]

Jesurgislac: I like curry, you can keep the wine. Suspect it will be logistically impossible but admire your determination to steer this thread somewhere else.

Now I am going to try to list the Ten Commandments. I have decided not to cheat, but because you can't see me only I will know if I'm honest. I confess in advance that I do own a Bible (I can even see it, on a shelf nearby) and that I was brought up Christian. Don't worry though, those aren't huge advantages as we shall probably see... Hmm... I'm fairly sure I'll get the order wrong, and at least one or two commandments

1. No other Gods before Jehovah / The Big Guy / Him Upstairs (not to be confused with Her Indoors who must be obeyed)
2. Take one day a week off to worship God
3. No killing (murdering? unless you were told to?) people
4. No coveting other people's stuff
5. Children (or maybe everyone?) must obey their parents and not talk back
6. No Sex Without Marriage (like the Front 242 sample)
7. No stealing stuff (even if you don't covet it first?)

Hmm, that's only seven commandments. See, I thought I wasn't a very good Christian. This is a good game though, I will try it on other ex-Christians. Now I will post this before I get tempted to open up that Bible and find out the right answers.

[Tonio]

Nick Lamb,

Here's my attempt to list the Commandments from memory (no particular order):
* No other gods before me
* No graven images
* No taking the Lord's name in vain
* Remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy
* Honor thy father and mother
* No killing
* No stealing
* No coveting

I've never heard of your No. 6, at least as an official Commandment.

[Rosina]

Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour - which is one which perhaps does belong in a courthouse!

Thou shalt not take not the name of the Lord thy God in vain.

Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven images.

I am clearly a KJVist.

The one I wanted to keep is probably from the Book of Common Prayer: Cursed be he that moveth his neighbour's landmark, so leave that gnome alone.

[Rosina]

I've never heard of your No. 6, at least as an official Commandment.

Nick's 6th was "Thou shalt [not] commit adultery", one of the most famous. Different definitions of adultery may apply, and need not apply only to adults.

[Tonio]

Rosina, thanks for the information. I have NEVER heard or read of any definition of "adultery" other than marital infidelity.

When I read "graven images," I think of how the Amish interpret the commandment. As I understand it, the Amish make children's dolls with no faces, they do not own mirrors, and they paint their buggies in flat gray paint so as to not serve as mirrors.

[Jesurgislac]

1. Have no other gods before me
2. Don't make graven images
3. No murdering
4. No committing adultery
5. No bearing false witness
6. Honoring your parents that your days may be long
7. No coveting your neighbor's ass

Okay, I've missed three. :-(

Which am I not remembering? *checks upthread*

Ah - I forgot about keeping the Sabbath holy, and I forgot about no stealing. What's the other one?

I like curry, you can keep the wine.

I am fighting off a cold. Curry is essential.

[hapax]

Tonio: "Theism claims that gods issue orders to humans, who will face judgment after death based on whether they follow those orders."

Tonio, once again, you seem to paint "theism" with a mighty broad brush. I don't know what personal demons you are wrestling with, but I can't imagine that tossing this enormous straw giant into the fight can help matters much.

Jesu: "I am fighting off a cold. Curry is essential."

Sorry about the cold. I would recommend switching out the wine for a good single-malt, in this case.

I love curry, but cumin has the unfortunate side-effect of making my intestines try to climb out through my ears. I can usually eat Thai red or green curry, though -- am I too late to join in the feast?

[PK]

Easiest way to memorize the 10 commandments in order:

http://www.livingwaters.com/Merchant2/graphics/tracts/hey_kids/index.html