I've been doing some video research for my ethics classes, trying to explore the relationship between ethics and religion. Haven't found much good stuff directly dealing with the Euthyphro problem, Socrates' ultimate refutation of religious doctrine as the source of justified morality, but I did find this interesting excerpt of a documentary narrated by Richard Dawkins, entitled The Root of All Evil, which at least deals with one of the horns of the Euthyphro problem.I love it when he goes "yes, in the biblical sense" :-)
To listen to the entirety of the dialoge Euthyphro, go here.
From Benny
ReplyDeleteHow credible is this information? Also, if I'm not mistaken the "Word of God" was scribed by racist, sexist, white, aquisitive, war bound, males. It only makes sence that they would include that.
The Old Testament is a wicked book. It is often the guidebook of the KKK, mysogenists, people who intolerate homosexuality, etc. I believe it is the book of Leviticus that outlines what one should do if he comes upon a man/woman of homosexual tendencies. "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." Levi.20:13 (I think that's how you write it!) In a few other versions it goes onto explain how the man should be stoned to death. Ah, the mercy of God, it's touching, really. :)
ReplyDeleteOh yeah... the same chapter of Leviticus also says that people who commit adultery, both men and women (to its credit), shall be put to death.
ReplyDeleteThen chapter 24 states: "And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Bring forth him that hath cursed without the camp; and let all that heard him lay their hands upon his head, and let all the congregation stone him. And thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel, saying, Whosoever curseth his God shall bear his sin. And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the Lord, shall be put to death."
But then right before any of this starts,God says: "For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him."
Sounds like God hates all children, then...
God in the Old Testament seems as though he hates all children. However, the move from a wrathful deity to a merciful one was supposedly made in the New Testament, which many Christians would tout as the "real" word of the Lord, probably to set themselves apart from Judaism (though many do take what they want from the Old Testament in order to support their narrowist views on social issues.) I'm not sure if you read my comment that you had posted in the OCCC Philosophy blog in regards to Pascal's Wager...obviously there are multitudes of reasons to tear apart Christianity in the atheist viewpoint, but the last comment in that skit about how atheists "believe in one less god than you do" really made me think that the attack is on Christianity/Judaism/Muslim tradition with not a lot of focus on polytheistic societies. Is that the case (seeming as though you seem to be an expert on the subject!)? :)
ReplyDeleteThe move from the old testament to the new intrigues me.
ReplyDeleteIf the new testament is supposedly better than the old, and both were ultimately inspired by God, then it seems that the new improvement betrays the fact that maybe God messed up the first time, doesn't it?
So maybe God isn't infallible... oh boy...
The end of the logically critical podcast on Pascal's wager, I think, is not meant to discriminate between monotheistic and polytheistic religions. I think he focused on monotheistic religions simply because they are the ones that currently have political power and most people believe in them.
I'm also thinking he might be from the South, so maybe Christianity is pretty heavy where he lives, which would explain why he feels so strongly about shining some light on these beliefs, but I don't know for sure.
This passage is God's reflection of events after the Great Flood -Genesis 8:21: 'And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done.'
ReplyDeleteBy saying that he will never eradicate human life again because He had realized that man's heart is born evil in the first place, wouldn't that put a limit on the omniscience of God, since an omniscient being should already know that man is inherently evil - I mean, he made us, right?! That would surely act as an example of the limits of God without even moving into discrepancies of the New Testament.
Before writing my comment about the atheist saying, I googled it (I love how that is now a dictionary-backed word!) and found that it is in fact a widely used atheist motto (not limited to Southern men who are frustrated with the Jesus-fish bumpers that are prevalent in the area). I find it odd that atheism is a Western philosophy, as there are many who weild power in the East who happen to believe in many gods. I recently read about naturalism and the theories behind it and find that all religions are categorized under the atheist mind-frame (so monotheism & polytheism are essentially the same target), but since I thought atheism was a cerebral undertaking - shouldn't that saying not be used by it's followers due to it's limited context? I use the term 'followers' because I think that atheism is another form of religion in that the desire to disprove others beliefs becomes an all encompassing way of life, therefore giving their life meaning in the absence of god. I'm not really sure where I stand on the topic myself, as I am questioning beliefs that up until a few weeks ago seemed concrete in my nature (thanks Philosophy 101!!!), but as I read more - I believe that agnosticism is less arrogant than atheism, which seems to be a way of life - ie. religion. Sorry if that was offensive - I see naturalists as seeking the truth, absolutely, but I often view atheism in terms of an argumentative fallacy, Argumentum Ad Ignorantium - the appeal to lack of evidence. If there is no concrete evidence of supernatural phenomena, then therefore there must be no god. Am I correct in my assumption?
The reason I mentioned he might be from the South is actually based on hints I've gathered from other episodes I've listened to, not on that particular quote at the end of the podcast.
ReplyDeleteThis might be partly a matter of semantics, but I don't quite see how atheism can be a form of religion. Atheism, strictly speaking, is the absence of belief in a deity (or any number greater than zero).
The reason why atheism may seem like a religion is that there are many atheists who try to convert people away from religion. Most atheists, however, don't even dare come out of the closet.
Atheism is not concerned with proving others wrong, as you seem to think.
What happens is that many atheists believe that religious beliefs are not simply beliefs. If they were, then there would be no problem for those who do not believe, although it can be annoying at times that people believe certain things.
The problem really starts with the fact that many religious people attempt to convert others to their religion. I can't remember the last time an atheist came knocking on my door to try to convert me, but I can certainly remember numerous times when religious people have.
The second reason, which is perhaps the most important one is that religious beliefs produce what we might call behavioral consequences. This can range anywhere from suicidal martyrs flying planes into buildings to catholic missionaries providing the only education available to millions of African people about condoms: bad information. The latter case has resulted in the spread of HIV to more than 3 million people.
Religious beliefs are not simply beliefs: they produce behavioral consequences that actually affect people's lives.
Whether atheism commits the logical fallacy of appealing to ignorance... you might be on to something. I often wonder whether this is the case or not.
I think how you interpret this might depend on how you frame the position. The way you frame it seems to indicate a possible logical fallacy, and hence maybe even some arrogance on the part of atheists.
Let me provide a different possible interpretation: lack of belief is the original, rational, default position.
Should anyone believe that the flying spaghetti monster exists? Without any reason that would justify this belief, it seems it would be unjustified. There is no reason why someone should believe something for which there is absolutely no reason to believe in it.
The objection that faith would be a good reason might work, but it would also entail that one ought to believe in absolutely everything for which there is no evidence, or reason. If one doesn't, then one seems to lack faith, the very same attribute they used to justify their original claim, which seems to produce a contradiction.
Atheism is the lack of belief, and it seems to me a lack of belief is exactly the opposite of a religion. If you think about it, we all start out as atheists; that is, until we are indoctrinated into a particular religion, which we subsequently adopt.
I apologize for my Southern joke. I was actually making a parallel to my own frustration with the South - one of the reasons why I had started to re-think Christianity was living there and seeing that churches were bigger than my high school, on every Sunday there were "converters" on street corners advertising for God, and the prevalence of many, MANY Jesus Fish on car bumpers.
ReplyDeleteThat does lead into your one argument on how religion tries to convert whereas atheism does not. I feel that if it were maybe safe to do so, atheists would speak on a much larger platform than they do now, however the intolerance of the ever-present Christian community would not lend to an open forum of such discussions.
I think that your point that religion leads to behavioral consequences is a logical fallacy of false cause - I think specifically it's joint effect. Yes, zealots in organized religion commit horrible atrocities in the name of God. However, there are peaceful religions that try not to convert people or to do anything to harm someone that is not of like-mind. I think you (or rather atheists in general) are trying to make a direct cause of religion leading to wickedness (or negative behavioral consequences). However, I think you are taking out the impure hand of man in this equation. Man has the tendency to mar all that he touches. We don't blame the thing that he touches for being so inviting that it made man ruin it. Take communism for example - on paper, the idea is brilliant. When man takes hold of it, it is distorted and corrupted into a power struggle. So, is communism bad, or is man bad? Religion, if used the right way, can be a way to lead a full life. I don’t think that you need religion in order to do so, but I do think that many people lack the mental capacity to do it of their own volition (regardless of how misanthropic that may sound), so religion acts as a way to keep man in check. I am also not saying that anyone that believes in God lacks mental capacity – I do think that it gives mysticism to the ordinary doldrums of life and there are many people who have had spiritual experiences that would support their belief (whether it was caused by chemical secretions in the brain, relating coincidence to meaning, or perhaps something that science has not been able to explain). However, any religion that is intolerant of others is obviously not good, and atheists that abhor that type are right to do so if it is those behavioral implications that lend them to despise organized religion. To blame all religion when the root of the actual evil is man, I feel, is misdirected energy.
I hear you... I've been to some parts of the south where there were literally more churches than houses... one of them right next to Ken's Kountry Kitchen (KKK...).
ReplyDeleteI actually agree with you. There really are some religions that advocate peace, compassion, and love for our fellow man, all of which are truly beautiful sentiments. And there is something odd about criticizing religions that teach such noble feelings.
However, I also have to agree with you that your view ultimately seems misanthropic, since you are offering an accusation,perhaps unwittingly, that people are either not smart enough to know better, or not individually capable of being good without being told so by some external supernatural power.
Religion does help to keep people in check... that's just a fact. But the claim of whether religion is necessary to keep man in check seems a rather harsh indictment on humanity's ability to overcome moral bigotry and prejudice. You may be right about this, as an empirical fact, but I hope you're not.
On your other point, with the analogy of communism, you argue that it's a really good idea on paper. I think I would have to disagree with that claim. I think it 'sounds' nice on paper (you get what I mean), but it's actually categorically NOT a good idea. Why? Because it's a political system that ignores the truth about human beings, and so the expectations it creates of people are simply not realistic, which means it can't actually be instituted.
But I also think I agree with you that it may not be religion per se that is the root of much evil but ideology. Of course, when certain ideologies are embedded so deeply in our subconscious that we take them completely for granted and dare not question them, such as religion, or nationalism, etc., then it's easy to see what kind of behavioral consequences can be produced.
The thing that makes religion especially open to criticism, I think, is the extent to which it becomes an insidious ideology: if you don't believe, or act the way your deity demands of you, you don't just suffer social rejection... you actually get to suffer for eternity, and the thought is so scary that no person in her right mind, assuming she believes, should dare question the deity. And the converse for eternal bliss...
So, you may be right that religion may not be the CAUSE of many evils, although I think it actually is the cause of many, though perhaps not all, but it may still be true that religion is a necessary condition of many evils. That is to say, it's a condition without which many evils could not possibly take place on their own.
By the way, I sport some super cool evolution fish on my car... one reads "evolve" :-)
When I lived in the South (particulary coined "The Crotch of the Bible Belt" by its natives - I'm sure Ken's Kountry Kitchen had a stake in there as well!) I used to honk my horn and wave at the few brave souls who had sported Darwin fish - I love those things! Kudos to you!
ReplyDeleteI think I may have mis-spoke by saying that people lack mental capacity to adequately discern right from wrong/good from bad. It isn't mental capacity that people lack as we are all pretty much given the same baseline structure, and then individually what we choose to do with our make-up denotes our characteristics. I think I had meant to say that man's drive to learn - the ever constant force to ingest information is what most people lack. From there is where people should be able to glean enough information to adequately determine what is right and what is wrong. However, I am afraid that people, at least in the Western Hemisphere, are mostly complacent. They would rather be force-fed any bits of "knowledge" that they pick up on the evening news, or by their parents, ministers, etc. as opposed to digging hard themselves for truth. If people continually had the driving force to learn, then yes, there would not be a need for peaceful, love centered religions to teach morality. Until the day comes when people are using their time more to read than watch TV, I still think that religion is needed.
I do think that the problem lies in religions that teach "my way or the highway", or more aptly "my way or eternal damnation in fiery hell". Every person is aware of their own mortality, and that is what drives people to do unspeakable things in the name of God. If God were taught as an idea of peace, then maybe we wouldn't have suicide bombers or ridiculously mis-informed pamphlets essentially spreading AIDS throughout third-world countries. Those religions are in essence crimes against humanity.
In my analogy of communism - isn't your point a point actually for me?! Yes, it is a wonderful idea on paper. However, man's selfish characteristics make it impossible to implement in real-world situations. You were basically saying that because communism didn't account for the dark-side of man that it was a horrible idea. I am saying that the dark-side of man is what keeps us from peacefully co-habitating in a communal environment. Then again it may only work for microcosms of society, with all members choosing their path, and not being forced into such living.
I think that you hold a very optimistic picture of humanity - it is actually an endearing quality. I am a bit of a misanthrope, but do love parts of humanity that choose to fulfill their ultimate potential. I thoroughly detest the type of society that chooses to not question authority or that chooses to be numbed by the media. I love people who love to learn - so maybe I am just a quasi-misanthrope afterall.
I didn't mean that you are a misanthrope, and that I'm an anthrophile... I'm sure we're both a bit of both, depending on the day.
ReplyDeleteI know I have my days when there's only so much stupidity and/or pettiness I can take, but in general I'm very patient and laid back enough that I don't give myself ulcers.
In general I do like to give people the benefit of the doubt and start from the presupposition that they can do something worthwhile or say something interesting or smart, but if they go over a certain limit... I will open up a can of whoop-ass and get medieval on them...
I didn't see this post before. Thanks for not saying I am a misanthrope, though honestly I wouldn't mind...I'm a fan of Moliere. I generally am very patient myself (have to be with my students!) but tend not to have an overly optimistic view on what each person will produce. I guess I don't like to have high expectations and would rather a person surprise me with intelligence than to expect it and be disappointed. Glad to hear that you're manning the "idiocy fences". Please feel free to beat down any that display such qualities, as a good will gesture for mankind. :)
ReplyDelete