I am a child of the internet, I grew up with the information super high way and was perhaps one of the first generations to do so.
Debates, flame wars, and irrational arguments are part of my heritage.
The thing about a discussion is that you present your views and your arguments and you understand that lies and aggression dont resolve disputes... ever. When people get nasty the debate becomes a war and people will fight it not because they feel they are right but because they think the other side does not deserve to win.
The other day I made a comment on an article on a pro-life website. It was a small comment but it triggered some interesting responses. Specifically the person was of the opinion that "To discuss a moral issue without [the christian] god was [insane]" effectively throwing out any non-theistic argument.
I dont claim this person is representative of the people who read and comment on this type of article... In fact I think the vast majority are much more moderate in their views and would never say that a person who did not believe in Jesus should be banned form a moral debate.
But where were these people?
I comment on blogs often (faith based, secular, and atheistic) and I never see the moderates telling off the radicals on faith based forums. In the secular and atheists forums/comment threads it's different I have seen people pulled up for saying "I hope the burglar gets caught and that he is punished" simply because the person writing it used the masculine pronoun assuming the thief in question was male.
Outside of faith-based discussions people have far less problems calling out someone on their side for making a non-factual or fallacious argument.
I made a comment myself about what should and should not be allowed to be taught to kids in an atheist forum and was pulled up on it by another member, he was right and I changed my stand accordingly.
But on faith discussions I see far less willingness to do so...
Recently in one article on a pro-life website I have seen people in the comments claim that sex outside natural marriage was rape, and that using a condom was murder.
Why is it that the moderates of faith let those statements slide?
I know people who have been raped, for whom the experience was so terrible it still effects them years later. To liken all consensual sex, all love making outside of a christian marriage to that experience is insulting enough to me but those people who have experienced rape, it is a dismissal of all their pain with a single semantic swipe.
In other articles I have seen people claim that no woman ever dies from not receiving an abortion, this discussion just days before a woman in ireland died because they would not performa life saving procedure while there was a foetal heart beat, nor would they abort the foetus even though the child could not be saved. Savita Halappanavar was the victim of a faith based policy that says when the mothers life can only be saved by terminating the child it is better to let them both die.
Again, why is it that the only people calling these people out, the only ones willing to stand up and point out the absurdity of the claim that abortions are never needed to save a mothers life were people who were pro-choice. Did nobody on the pro life side realise that the facts had been distorted to support the claim?
As far as I can see it is because people of faith hold that others are entitled to their beliefs even if it is radicalised and would cost lives, even if it is bigoted, and even if it is manifestly wrong.
Unless of course... those beliefs contradicts the laws of god.
Then it is not a belief to be tolerated, it is immorality, it is evil, or it is "insanity".
It has been said by many people better than me that moderate religious positions create safe harbours for dangerous radicals most of who are fundamentalists or literalists.
I think this is only true because moderates too often fail in their duty to fight the extreme views they do not share. They allow tolerance of different peoples of faith to prevent them from chastising and openly disagreeing with statements and practices that go against their own morals.
They do this simply because they have been raised to think "faith" is a virtue.
It takes a major event like a woman dying after days of agony or a you girl being shot in the face to stimulate people of faith to protect against their bedfellows.
But by then it is too late and the damage has been done.
It is important for anyone engaged in a debate to remain intellectually honest, this means not trading in your ethics and not throwing away your principles in favor of flawed or untruthful arguments. It also means not silently accenting to arguments that you fundamentally disagree with just because it suits your current position.
I dont claim that only people of faith are subject to this particular weakness, it seduces anyone who feels passionate about their position but the when you consider faith a virtue you have a blind spot to the motivations of others who share that faith.
Showing posts with label debate. Show all posts
Showing posts with label debate. Show all posts
Monday, 19 November 2012
Sunday, 11 November 2012
The Thoughtless Insult
Since I wrote my post on the ten commandments I've had several discussions about atheist morality, what it is, where it comes from, etc.
Whenever two groups discuss morality there is a high potential for offense, but it is surprising to see the level so high in a debate when (in general) both sides share so many common moral values.
So I thought I'd write a post covering some of my thoughts on the claims made about and against atheists when it comes to morality, listed here in ascending order of offense.
To the people who repeat these claims they are not necessarily intending to be offensive, but they are. The simple fact that atheists do find these claims offensive should indicate that morality is actually something important to and valued by the vast majority of atheists.
Statements like "Research has consistently found that religious people are less likely to engage in criminal behavior, marital infidelity, alcoholism, unprotected sexual activity. ." are often made without citing any supporting evidence.
In fact it's hard to even find any supporting evidence for this outside of repeated claims and anecdotal collections published by pro-religion groups.
While it's true that atheists/secularists are more likely to engage in underage alcohol use and illegal drugs, actual addiction rates are no different between the atheists and theists. This implies that atheists are at greater risk, yet they do not succumb more. If we proceed from the position that faith is even a factor we have to conclude that it is a negative one that weakens people to temptation... Or we take the much more reasonable view that faith is simply not a factor in alcoholism and addiction despite the claims made to the contrary.
The bulk of the reputable research done on the subject actually points the other way as shown in the 2009 paper "Atheism, Secularity, and Well-Being: How the Findings of Social Science Counter Negative Stereotypes and Assumptions" by Phil Zuckerman of Pitzer College. In the paper Zuckerman refers to and cites quite a few different studies that constitute what academics call a preponderance of evidence in support of the idea that atheists show no indication of being more subject to moral/social ills than theists.
Of course this was not new even in 2009, back in 2005 an article was published in Journal of Religion & Society (http://www.creighton.edu/JRS) with the catchy title "Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies" that simply compared level of religious belief in modern democracies with various social ills. It highlighted again that modern democracies with the lowest level of religion have the lowest levels of social problems in almost all regards.
The other claims that atheists are moral relativists or social darwinists are just as offensive to the majority of atheists. Mostly because it is wrong, secular humanism remains the largest identified moral/ethical position held by atheists.
However these claims are also offensive because they are often accompanied by extreme examples actively designed to offend.
I heard one debate in which the pro faith representative explained moral relativism by saying "Imagine the worst thing that has ever happened to you... the most horrible, painful event in your life... now imagine the person who committed that crime simply claimed that in his culture it was not considered evil so he had done nothing wrong" - the debater in question also tried to say that this was not an appeal to emotion.
Mostly however the claim of moral relativism is offensive because there are three types of moral relativism and each one of them is reflected by religious apologetics to some extent.
Descriptive Moral Relativism - is simply the observation of the fact that different cultures have different moral standards - Any person of faith who accepts that other faiths should be allowed to practice their beliefs is agreeing with this premis.
Meta-Ethical Moral Relativism - is the contention that good/bad, right/wrong, dont have a universal truth to them and they depend on the social, historical, cultural, traditional and physical contexts - The common example I see for this is the way in which modern christians separate themselves from the crimes of the old testament and gods wrath with phrase like "well that was a different time and different world..."
Normative Moral Relativism - goes beyond meta-ethical and claims that we should ought to tolerate the moral views of others whose standards contradict our own - This is the moral relativism used to create harsh examples to attack atheism. Most philosophers point out that you cannot get to an "ought" position from a relativistic premis. In reality one of the easiest to find examples of people following this normative line of reasoning can be seen when moderates tolerate extremists of the same religion.
Tolerance of others requires either hypocrisy or moral relativity in some quantity but most people would not identify with the extreme examples of moral relativity offered by religionists who seek to paint atheists as incapable of moral consistency/integrity.
I must admit I was tempted to totally ignore the claims of social darwinism
I could have done for no other reason than the term itself is mostly used today in a pejorative sense, that is to say if used as a derogatory name, Almost no-body actually identifies as a social darwinist now or in the last twenty years. So it is used almost exclusively by it's detractors at best as an example of a hypothetical or historical philosophical position or at worst (and this makes more sense in the debate over atheist morals) as a straw-man argument.
But if claims are expected to stand on their merits then so must rejections of claims.
Social darwinism can be simply described as an ideology that seeks to apply concepts of darwinian evolution to society. It carries the assumption that conflict and competition for limited resources is the best way to determine which social values are most effective.
The "darwinism" part was added only after Darwin published The Origin Of Species - the idea itself predates darwin. And while Darwin indicated a process by which change occurred he did not ascribe any value other than its suitability to survive in a given set of environmental conditions.
It is clear however that ANY value system applied to a system other than direct survivability precludes the adoption of social darwinism.
Religionists will often support the claim by quoting atheists who have said the universe is uncaring and extend that incorrectly, to assume that atheists are uncaring. Atheists however do not simply adopt the values of the universe.
An atheist knows that a house fire is a physical event that will not distinguish between a rabbit in a cage and baby in a cot, however that does not mean the atheist himself holds no such distinction - In fact the atheist is human and has all the instinctive, cultural, and intellectually generated values that that necessarily entails.
The fact that fire does not discriminate in it's victims demonstrates that the universe does not work to an absolute moral dictum. The fact that humans do discriminate and value some things more than others indicates that we are able to generate morality in the absence of a an absolute dictum.
The final claim is the most offensive. That atheists get their morality from god.
This neatly filters all evidence to supports their claim. Anything anyone does that is good is so because god wrote it on their hearts, anything they do that is bad, is so because we are fallen or imperfect.
I would not (but do not deny that some atheists do) make the counter claim that any reason you have for not believing in god is rationalism and any reason you have for believing in god is insanity.
Both the religionist claim and the counter claim are circular logic, they are only supported by themselves. In the claim religionists redefine "good" as actions resulting from gods influence and "bad" as actions resulting from the fall of man. In the (equally unsupported) counter argument "insanity" is defined as belief in god and "rationalism" as the rejection of god.
So neither stament has any logical or evidentiary value.
The claim that all atheist morality comes from god can therefore not be tested or supported and the only valid source for such a statement is revelation. They claim special knowledge that cannot be, by it's nature, shared or proven externally.
The religionists who make this claim are attempting to use an absolutely subjective experience, to justify an absolutely objective claim.
Thats why I think the claim is at worst wrong and at best unusable, but I said the claim it self was offensive.
When I argue with other people I always have to accept that they may be right, that they may, in the course of discussions, introduce a new concept or new evidence to support their position that will change the way I think on a particular matter.
But the claim that atheists are moral because god makes them that way dismisses any personal values I may bring to the table, it lays claim to any good thought, good action, or good intention any atheist exhibits. It is a claim that devalues the atheist and his beliefs, a blind judgement without any recourse or appeal.
This level of arrogance is what I find most offensive, this lack of understanding, and this intellectual dishonesty in entering a debate when no evidence or argument will shift then from their position. These claims are not made directly and personally against any individual atheist, but they are made and apply to any and all people who identify as atheist or subscribe to and atheistic morality.
Whenever two groups discuss morality there is a high potential for offense, but it is surprising to see the level so high in a debate when (in general) both sides share so many common moral values.
So I thought I'd write a post covering some of my thoughts on the claims made about and against atheists when it comes to morality, listed here in ascending order of offense.
- Atheists have no morality and think there is no such things as right or wrong
- Atheists are moral relativists so anything is permissible if the person thinks it is
- Atheists believe in social darwinism
- Atheists do know right from wrong because god wrote it on their heart even if they dont believe
To the people who repeat these claims they are not necessarily intending to be offensive, but they are. The simple fact that atheists do find these claims offensive should indicate that morality is actually something important to and valued by the vast majority of atheists.
Statements like "Research has consistently found that religious people are less likely to engage in criminal behavior, marital infidelity, alcoholism, unprotected sexual activity. ." are often made without citing any supporting evidence.
In fact it's hard to even find any supporting evidence for this outside of repeated claims and anecdotal collections published by pro-religion groups.
While it's true that atheists/secularists are more likely to engage in underage alcohol use and illegal drugs, actual addiction rates are no different between the atheists and theists. This implies that atheists are at greater risk, yet they do not succumb more. If we proceed from the position that faith is even a factor we have to conclude that it is a negative one that weakens people to temptation... Or we take the much more reasonable view that faith is simply not a factor in alcoholism and addiction despite the claims made to the contrary.
Of course this was not new even in 2009, back in 2005 an article was published in Journal of Religion & Society (http://www.creighton.edu/JRS) with the catchy title "Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies" that simply compared level of religious belief in modern democracies with various social ills. It highlighted again that modern democracies with the lowest level of religion have the lowest levels of social problems in almost all regards.
The other claims that atheists are moral relativists or social darwinists are just as offensive to the majority of atheists. Mostly because it is wrong, secular humanism remains the largest identified moral/ethical position held by atheists.
However these claims are also offensive because they are often accompanied by extreme examples actively designed to offend.
I heard one debate in which the pro faith representative explained moral relativism by saying "Imagine the worst thing that has ever happened to you... the most horrible, painful event in your life... now imagine the person who committed that crime simply claimed that in his culture it was not considered evil so he had done nothing wrong" - the debater in question also tried to say that this was not an appeal to emotion.
Mostly however the claim of moral relativism is offensive because there are three types of moral relativism and each one of them is reflected by religious apologetics to some extent.
Descriptive Moral Relativism - is simply the observation of the fact that different cultures have different moral standards - Any person of faith who accepts that other faiths should be allowed to practice their beliefs is agreeing with this premis.
Meta-Ethical Moral Relativism - is the contention that good/bad, right/wrong, dont have a universal truth to them and they depend on the social, historical, cultural, traditional and physical contexts - The common example I see for this is the way in which modern christians separate themselves from the crimes of the old testament and gods wrath with phrase like "well that was a different time and different world..."
Normative Moral Relativism - goes beyond meta-ethical and claims that we should ought to tolerate the moral views of others whose standards contradict our own - This is the moral relativism used to create harsh examples to attack atheism. Most philosophers point out that you cannot get to an "ought" position from a relativistic premis. In reality one of the easiest to find examples of people following this normative line of reasoning can be seen when moderates tolerate extremists of the same religion.
Tolerance of others requires either hypocrisy or moral relativity in some quantity but most people would not identify with the extreme examples of moral relativity offered by religionists who seek to paint atheists as incapable of moral consistency/integrity.
I must admit I was tempted to totally ignore the claims of social darwinism
I could have done for no other reason than the term itself is mostly used today in a pejorative sense, that is to say if used as a derogatory name, Almost no-body actually identifies as a social darwinist now or in the last twenty years. So it is used almost exclusively by it's detractors at best as an example of a hypothetical or historical philosophical position or at worst (and this makes more sense in the debate over atheist morals) as a straw-man argument.
But if claims are expected to stand on their merits then so must rejections of claims.
Social darwinism can be simply described as an ideology that seeks to apply concepts of darwinian evolution to society. It carries the assumption that conflict and competition for limited resources is the best way to determine which social values are most effective.
The "darwinism" part was added only after Darwin published The Origin Of Species - the idea itself predates darwin. And while Darwin indicated a process by which change occurred he did not ascribe any value other than its suitability to survive in a given set of environmental conditions.
It is clear however that ANY value system applied to a system other than direct survivability precludes the adoption of social darwinism.
Religionists will often support the claim by quoting atheists who have said the universe is uncaring and extend that incorrectly, to assume that atheists are uncaring. Atheists however do not simply adopt the values of the universe.
An atheist knows that a house fire is a physical event that will not distinguish between a rabbit in a cage and baby in a cot, however that does not mean the atheist himself holds no such distinction - In fact the atheist is human and has all the instinctive, cultural, and intellectually generated values that that necessarily entails.
The fact that fire does not discriminate in it's victims demonstrates that the universe does not work to an absolute moral dictum. The fact that humans do discriminate and value some things more than others indicates that we are able to generate morality in the absence of a an absolute dictum.
The final claim is the most offensive. That atheists get their morality from god.
This neatly filters all evidence to supports their claim. Anything anyone does that is good is so because god wrote it on their hearts, anything they do that is bad, is so because we are fallen or imperfect.
I would not (but do not deny that some atheists do) make the counter claim that any reason you have for not believing in god is rationalism and any reason you have for believing in god is insanity.
Both the religionist claim and the counter claim are circular logic, they are only supported by themselves. In the claim religionists redefine "good" as actions resulting from gods influence and "bad" as actions resulting from the fall of man. In the (equally unsupported) counter argument "insanity" is defined as belief in god and "rationalism" as the rejection of god.
So neither stament has any logical or evidentiary value.
The claim that all atheist morality comes from god can therefore not be tested or supported and the only valid source for such a statement is revelation. They claim special knowledge that cannot be, by it's nature, shared or proven externally.
The religionists who make this claim are attempting to use an absolutely subjective experience, to justify an absolutely objective claim.
Thats why I think the claim is at worst wrong and at best unusable, but I said the claim it self was offensive.
When I argue with other people I always have to accept that they may be right, that they may, in the course of discussions, introduce a new concept or new evidence to support their position that will change the way I think on a particular matter.
But the claim that atheists are moral because god makes them that way dismisses any personal values I may bring to the table, it lays claim to any good thought, good action, or good intention any atheist exhibits. It is a claim that devalues the atheist and his beliefs, a blind judgement without any recourse or appeal.
This level of arrogance is what I find most offensive, this lack of understanding, and this intellectual dishonesty in entering a debate when no evidence or argument will shift then from their position. These claims are not made directly and personally against any individual atheist, but they are made and apply to any and all people who identify as atheist or subscribe to and atheistic morality.
Sunday, 14 October 2012
What rights do you really have
I rapidly get tired of people saying that people of faith have a right to their beliefs when engaging in religious debates online.
Really? Putting aside the assumption that a social courtesy constitutes a right... If someone thought something that you disagreed with and made decision in society that you share with them (such as selecting political choices) does they right to internal beliefs demand that you not present alternative views?
I dont think so, if it did there would be no political or social debate and the men that knock on my door to ask me if I've heard the good news would have been arrested long ago.
A right is an entitlement, opportunity, freedom, or resource granted to an individual by a group.
But what happens when rights conflict? If two people have the right to a particular resource that can only be used once then is one persons right being denied by the other person? Or was the right only for the opportunity of use of the resource, not (as people may infer) exclusive use of the resource.
Many rights can be distinguished in this way, when people say they have a right to believe what they want, they actually mean they have the opportunity to believe what they want, but the actual belief is not necessarily protected.
Think about it, how many laws are in place to prevent me from challenging your belief by presenting a counter perspective? In fact most societies have specific laws protecting my right to express my points of view.
I mentioned socially courtesy earlier, because I do respect the beliefs of others, this blog for instance is separate from my other online activities in order to avoid offending people who do not wish to discuss these topics.
However, someone who enters into a debate online has waved any such respect, they dont get to go a few rounds and then simply say "well I have a right to my beliefs" before leaving. This is dishonest and intellectually bankrupt. A simple case of "I'm going to attack your position under the guise of open debate but deny your right of reply".
And given that arguments can be made against actions performed under the flag of religious practices, it can be argued that presenting alternative points of view to people thus engaged is a moral imperative.
People dont really have a right to believe, people get a right to not be persecuted for their beliefs, but all rights of freedom and speech are in place to support the exchange if ideas and people who do not wish to hear conflicting ideas have only one choice open to them - Stay out of the debate.
Really? Putting aside the assumption that a social courtesy constitutes a right... If someone thought something that you disagreed with and made decision in society that you share with them (such as selecting political choices) does they right to internal beliefs demand that you not present alternative views?
I dont think so, if it did there would be no political or social debate and the men that knock on my door to ask me if I've heard the good news would have been arrested long ago.
A right is an entitlement, opportunity, freedom, or resource granted to an individual by a group.
But what happens when rights conflict? If two people have the right to a particular resource that can only be used once then is one persons right being denied by the other person? Or was the right only for the opportunity of use of the resource, not (as people may infer) exclusive use of the resource.
Many rights can be distinguished in this way, when people say they have a right to believe what they want, they actually mean they have the opportunity to believe what they want, but the actual belief is not necessarily protected.
Think about it, how many laws are in place to prevent me from challenging your belief by presenting a counter perspective? In fact most societies have specific laws protecting my right to express my points of view.
I mentioned socially courtesy earlier, because I do respect the beliefs of others, this blog for instance is separate from my other online activities in order to avoid offending people who do not wish to discuss these topics.
However, someone who enters into a debate online has waved any such respect, they dont get to go a few rounds and then simply say "well I have a right to my beliefs" before leaving. This is dishonest and intellectually bankrupt. A simple case of "I'm going to attack your position under the guise of open debate but deny your right of reply".
And given that arguments can be made against actions performed under the flag of religious practices, it can be argued that presenting alternative points of view to people thus engaged is a moral imperative.
People dont really have a right to believe, people get a right to not be persecuted for their beliefs, but all rights of freedom and speech are in place to support the exchange if ideas and people who do not wish to hear conflicting ideas have only one choice open to them - Stay out of the debate.
Sunday, 30 September 2012
Early memories of an atheist
When I was a child my school had friday morning "scripture" and this, more than anything, is where I realised that I did not accept the claim of god.
I felt sorry then, and still do, for the woman who came in to teach all those young children about her beliefs. A large hall full of children, sitting cross legged, listening and trying to get their collective heads around the concept of orignal sin.
My first uncomfortable question was "Why, if god knew everything, he did not know that Eve and Adam were going to eat the apple?"
And even as a child, the question of free will seemed intractable. I felt I could not have free will if god made me and knew exactly everything I was ever going to do... If the path of my life was laid out before I was born could any decision I ever made be truly mine?
The poor scripture lady was stuck, I was asking questions about god and faith far outside the "how much does god love me?" queries she was used to answering from children. The fumbled answers she gave all came back to the bible, it was the source of all knowledge of god.
Q: But how do we know the bible is true?
A: Everyone knows god in their heart.
Q: Do people find the knowledge of god without the bible telling them about it?
A: ...
At that point the scripture lady told me to pray for the answers.
My concerns are more sophisticated now, as are the responses, but I still find the answers inadequate.
When I was young, god, the bible, and the church simply did not make any sense, and no-one was able to address my concerns. The whole idea of god just left me asking why? What was his purpose? What did god want to get out of it that he could not get another way that would hurt (us) less?
The lack of a decent response led to my second problem with faith - None of the adults who tried to talk to me about faith were able to adress my concerns. Had these people committed to a belief without applying any critical analysis to it?
I rapidly lost respect for the beliefs of those adults with strong faith and no reason.
Both my mother and father had been brought up in nominally religious households, but religion was not part of my home life and we did not attend church.
My parents wanted me to find my own way and to that end they made me attend the scripture lessons at school for several years so I could make my choice with some perspective. When I asked my parents to write a letter to the school exempting me from scripture studies, the teachers complied but did not take my choice seriously.
It is strange, a child of any age able to articulate a choice of faith has the right to choose, however a child of any age that is able to articulate a rejection of the available faiths on offer is always subject to challenge.
Even in Australia where religion is not a strong influence in society, a child who says they dont accept god gets a wide range of negative reactions. From the occasional smack on the head from the elderly for being "stupid" to bullying and shunning from other children I met few people in my youth who even accepted that it was my choice to make.
Personal beliefs always get respected no matter how bizarre, but a lack of belief, no matter how rationally arrived at is not subject to the same courtesy.
While some adults were obviously unhappy with me when I said I did not believe in god, others with less mainstream beliefs, assumed that the gates were open to explain their own faith to me. I may as well have had a sign around me neck that "Proselytise me!".
I was told about the nature spirits that guided some people, the astral plain others travelled on, even the enlightenment some claimed from meditating with monks in asia. Everyone seemed to think that if I could just see how cool their faith was, that I'd jump in and get me some.
Added to my parents open lack of intellectual restriction led to a pretty broad education on religion, and now in my later years I find I know things about religions that many practicing theists do (however I do NOT claim any theological standing). The diversity and incompatibility of the different faiths I was exposed to, however, made me realize that some of them had to be wrong. There was just too many conflicting claims, and if some of them could be wrong, maybe they could all be wrong.
Most of the claims shared many common elements, but people often included the more extraordinary claims in an attempt to pique my interest. This approach universally backfired because often only a cursory investigation was required to find the evidence insufficient or totally lacking.
The best example of that was someone telling me that men had one less rib because god took a rib from Adam to make Eve.... No, not true. Humans have 24 ribs each. Male or Female, makes no difference. Some individuals have 1 pair of ribs less, but it's not a male or female specific variation. You can find this in almost any book on human anatomy even the really simple ones written for kids - yet you'd be surprised how many adults today accept that claim without even checking it once.
Disrespect and wild claims were nothing, however, compared to the condescension that atheists are often subjected to.
That look you see when someone of faith fixes you with a faint smile, a misty look in their eyes, and a sad slow nod. Then they tell you that you "dont understand", that you are "denying yourself", or worst of all, ignoring the "god shaped hole in your heart".
Atheists dont get the moral high ground on this issue, both sides look down on the other wishing they could "just let themselves understand" but it's a little soul crushing for a child to have their perspective dismissed out of hand. If a child disagrees with your beliefs, you need to be ready to discuss them openly and honestly - and that includes accepting that you may be wrong on some if not all of your positions.
In my adult life I have been very lucky in making friends who not only accept my lack of faith, but also have a sense of humility about their own.
Today atheism has become part fo the mainstream debate, I started this blog because I wanted to add another voice to the groundswell of rationalists. At leasts when an adult expresses their faith to a child today I would hope they could do so rationally and consistently, something that was sadly lacking when I was a child.
I felt sorry then, and still do, for the woman who came in to teach all those young children about her beliefs. A large hall full of children, sitting cross legged, listening and trying to get their collective heads around the concept of orignal sin.
My first uncomfortable question was "Why, if god knew everything, he did not know that Eve and Adam were going to eat the apple?"
And even as a child, the question of free will seemed intractable. I felt I could not have free will if god made me and knew exactly everything I was ever going to do... If the path of my life was laid out before I was born could any decision I ever made be truly mine?
The poor scripture lady was stuck, I was asking questions about god and faith far outside the "how much does god love me?" queries she was used to answering from children. The fumbled answers she gave all came back to the bible, it was the source of all knowledge of god.
Q: But how do we know the bible is true?
A: Everyone knows god in their heart.
Q: Do people find the knowledge of god without the bible telling them about it?
A: ...
At that point the scripture lady told me to pray for the answers.
My concerns are more sophisticated now, as are the responses, but I still find the answers inadequate.
When I was young, god, the bible, and the church simply did not make any sense, and no-one was able to address my concerns. The whole idea of god just left me asking why? What was his purpose? What did god want to get out of it that he could not get another way that would hurt (us) less?
The lack of a decent response led to my second problem with faith - None of the adults who tried to talk to me about faith were able to adress my concerns. Had these people committed to a belief without applying any critical analysis to it?
I rapidly lost respect for the beliefs of those adults with strong faith and no reason.
Both my mother and father had been brought up in nominally religious households, but religion was not part of my home life and we did not attend church.
My parents wanted me to find my own way and to that end they made me attend the scripture lessons at school for several years so I could make my choice with some perspective. When I asked my parents to write a letter to the school exempting me from scripture studies, the teachers complied but did not take my choice seriously.
It is strange, a child of any age able to articulate a choice of faith has the right to choose, however a child of any age that is able to articulate a rejection of the available faiths on offer is always subject to challenge.
Even in Australia where religion is not a strong influence in society, a child who says they dont accept god gets a wide range of negative reactions. From the occasional smack on the head from the elderly for being "stupid" to bullying and shunning from other children I met few people in my youth who even accepted that it was my choice to make.
While some adults were obviously unhappy with me when I said I did not believe in god, others with less mainstream beliefs, assumed that the gates were open to explain their own faith to me. I may as well have had a sign around me neck that "Proselytise me!".
I was told about the nature spirits that guided some people, the astral plain others travelled on, even the enlightenment some claimed from meditating with monks in asia. Everyone seemed to think that if I could just see how cool their faith was, that I'd jump in and get me some.
Added to my parents open lack of intellectual restriction led to a pretty broad education on religion, and now in my later years I find I know things about religions that many practicing theists do (however I do NOT claim any theological standing). The diversity and incompatibility of the different faiths I was exposed to, however, made me realize that some of them had to be wrong. There was just too many conflicting claims, and if some of them could be wrong, maybe they could all be wrong.
Most of the claims shared many common elements, but people often included the more extraordinary claims in an attempt to pique my interest. This approach universally backfired because often only a cursory investigation was required to find the evidence insufficient or totally lacking.
The best example of that was someone telling me that men had one less rib because god took a rib from Adam to make Eve.... No, not true. Humans have 24 ribs each. Male or Female, makes no difference. Some individuals have 1 pair of ribs less, but it's not a male or female specific variation. You can find this in almost any book on human anatomy even the really simple ones written for kids - yet you'd be surprised how many adults today accept that claim without even checking it once.
Disrespect and wild claims were nothing, however, compared to the condescension that atheists are often subjected to.
That look you see when someone of faith fixes you with a faint smile, a misty look in their eyes, and a sad slow nod. Then they tell you that you "dont understand", that you are "denying yourself", or worst of all, ignoring the "god shaped hole in your heart".
Atheists dont get the moral high ground on this issue, both sides look down on the other wishing they could "just let themselves understand" but it's a little soul crushing for a child to have their perspective dismissed out of hand. If a child disagrees with your beliefs, you need to be ready to discuss them openly and honestly - and that includes accepting that you may be wrong on some if not all of your positions.
In my adult life I have been very lucky in making friends who not only accept my lack of faith, but also have a sense of humility about their own.
Today atheism has become part fo the mainstream debate, I started this blog because I wanted to add another voice to the groundswell of rationalists. At leasts when an adult expresses their faith to a child today I would hope they could do so rationally and consistently, something that was sadly lacking when I was a child.
Friday, 28 September 2012
The bible is a finite state machine.
The other day I was watching the movie "Collision" featuring debates between Christopher Hitchens and Douglas Wilson (watch it, it's awesome).
One of the topics debated was that of morality.
Most arguments or debates on morality between christians and atheists come down to the question of where morality comes from.
In the debate, the christians claim was that god is the source of objective morality and that such morality is communicated through the bible.
The idea of an objective morality is hard to support, because each human is (by definition) their own subject, and any objective morality interpreted by a subjective human must result in a subjective application.
This is not to say that the result of an objective moral judgment and subjective moral judgement must necessarily be different. However the deistic purity of the objective morality claimed by christians is subject to subjective distortion via the many and varied humans performing the interpretation.
The atheists claim in the debate was that morality is innate, either as a result of evolutionary imperatives or from an intellectual basis (such as enlightened self interest).
(please excuse my gross simplification of the arguments for the purposes of this post)
I'm going to avoid a deep discussion of the sources for human morality for another (much longer) post.
What neither side seemed to raise in the debates, was the limitations of the bible as a tool for determining morality. Specifically that the bible is a finite state machine.
By finite state machine, I mean that there are a limited number of parables, morality plays and direct behavioural edicts in the bible, all of which were written between 1.8 and 3.5 thousand years ago.
So it would be reasonable (read necessary) to expect that not every possible modern question of morality is dealt with in those pages.
Therefore in such situations where a clear and definitive moral ruling is not supplied, or where multiple conflicting moral laws seem to apply, christians must use their best judgment to determine how to interpret the bible.
Best judgement using their intellect and innate morality, any such interpretation made by a christian must eventually rely on those faculties.
Thus the arbiter of any moral ambiguity in the bible for a christian is same as the starting morality for an atheist.
I'm not saying that there is no morality in the bible - I think the bible contains great morality as well as great immorality. What I am saying is that human morality is useful without the bible but the bible is not useful without human morality. The same can be said of any finite text claiming to be the laws of god. In the end all moral decisions are human ones.
One of the topics debated was that of morality.
Most arguments or debates on morality between christians and atheists come down to the question of where morality comes from.
In the debate, the christians claim was that god is the source of objective morality and that such morality is communicated through the bible.
The idea of an objective morality is hard to support, because each human is (by definition) their own subject, and any objective morality interpreted by a subjective human must result in a subjective application.
Objective + Subjective = Subjective
This is not to say that the result of an objective moral judgment and subjective moral judgement must necessarily be different. However the deistic purity of the objective morality claimed by christians is subject to subjective distortion via the many and varied humans performing the interpretation.
The atheists claim in the debate was that morality is innate, either as a result of evolutionary imperatives or from an intellectual basis (such as enlightened self interest).
(please excuse my gross simplification of the arguments for the purposes of this post)
I'm going to avoid a deep discussion of the sources for human morality for another (much longer) post.
What neither side seemed to raise in the debates, was the limitations of the bible as a tool for determining morality. Specifically that the bible is a finite state machine.
By finite state machine, I mean that there are a limited number of parables, morality plays and direct behavioural edicts in the bible, all of which were written between 1.8 and 3.5 thousand years ago.
So it would be reasonable (read necessary) to expect that not every possible modern question of morality is dealt with in those pages.
Therefore in such situations where a clear and definitive moral ruling is not supplied, or where multiple conflicting moral laws seem to apply, christians must use their best judgment to determine how to interpret the bible.
Best judgement using their intellect and innate morality, any such interpretation made by a christian must eventually rely on those faculties.
Thus the arbiter of any moral ambiguity in the bible for a christian is same as the starting morality for an atheist.
I'm not saying that there is no morality in the bible - I think the bible contains great morality as well as great immorality. What I am saying is that human morality is useful without the bible but the bible is not useful without human morality. The same can be said of any finite text claiming to be the laws of god. In the end all moral decisions are human ones.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)