Throbert McGee

I would agree that violent crimes and teenage pregnancies are serious reasons for concern, but I'm doubtful that religion is an effective solution to either -- you can talk to people about God's laws and hellfire till your face turns blue, but some believers will still end up committing crimes, and some good Christian girls will still get themselves preggers. Divorce I have mixed feelings on -- yes, I suspect that liberalized divorce laws have led to some married couples splitting at the first sign of trouble, but outside of Hollywood I suspect the majority of divorces happen after the couple has made a serious effort at patching things up. And I think it would be quite wrong to force people to stay in an extremely dysfunctional marriage just to keep God from getting pissed off or whatever.

As to aspects of Judeo-Christian that I consider damaging, one that I am particularly aware of is the traditional view that homosexual acts -- even when they occur as expressions of emotional attachment between two adults -- are in some way sick, unnatural, or immoral. Because I know from direct firsthand experience that homosexual acts and homosexual relationships can be affectionate, respectful, physically safe, psychologically enriching, and generally groovy for both people involved. Describing such relationships as "evil" is both filthy-minded and nonsensical.

On the other hand, there are a few "Christian" values that I do find very admirable (if not necessarily exclusive to Christianity), and I discussed them yesterday in <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=45&t=000108" target="_blank">this thread</a> if you care to read and comment.

[ February 04, 2002: Message edited by: Throbert McGee ]</p>

abe smith

The Platonic artefact-concept "America" {which/who are supposed to "need religion" that also a Platonic Idea-l artefact] can be shucked; there isn't any "America", any more than there is "The Church", and any others of those great non-existent *man-made* dustbins. Dinna wave thy grungy Platonist locks at me, Kiddies.

Bill Snedden

Morality is not based on "responsibilities" any more than it is based on "rights". Morality is based on values. If one values "responsibilities" more than rights, one is most likely some type of deontologist. The valuation of "rights" is probably more compatible with forms of consequentialism.

I venture to guess that virtually all theists (especially Christians) are deontologists of some form or another. It's also likely true that most atheists/agnostics are likely to be some type of consequentialist. If true, this indicates a fundamental tension between how the two groups view morality and hence the reason why many of us seem to go 'round and 'round on this issue.

For myself, I would say that we have no "duty" to treat others ethically outside of the ineluctable necessity to behave ethically if we ourselves wish to survive and prosper. To clarify further, I am saying that the reason that we should act in an ethical manner with respect to other people lies not in any imagined "duty" to them, but in the clear and unavoidable path of our own self-interest. It is clear to me that ethical treatment of one's fellow human beings enriches one's own life and therefore my own self-interest should prompt me to behave appropriately.

I would agree with what I take as the essence of Lewy's argument: Humans need communities in order to reinforce social norms and standards. Such reinforcement promotes ethical learning and development. In human societies of the past, this was provided through the communities of religion and religious practice, morality being seen as the purview of religion (there's that deontology again!).

However, just as there is no necessary connection between "religion" and "community", so too is there no necessary connection between "religion" and "morality". I would argue that any "decline" in morality (if it can truly be called such) is due to the fracturing of homegeneous communities rather than any "loss" of religion.

Culture and tradition do not bend or blend easily. The increasingly diverse nature of human society has tended to bring together differing cultural and societal norms. These integrations have in turn created cultural/social fractures in previously integrated communities. The fracturing of these communities has disrupted the reinforcement of ethical development previously provided by these communities. Exposed to so many different standards and practices, people end up wondering if any real standards exist at all.

However, here's where I would part company with what appears to be Lewy's analysis. I would argue that here lies the danger in using religion, or any culturally/socially "closed" community, as a basis for moral development. Fractures or schisms in the community seem to necessarily cause the same to occur in ethical development and practice. As religion seems to be almost inextricably tied to culture, deontological moral systems, which by and large are the de facto systems espoused by religion (except perhaps for Buddhism), will not serve human needs. If we continue to necessarily tie our understanding of morality to religion, we are doomed.

I would argue instead that a lasting and effective moral system must have necessary ties to human needs as a whole, rather than any one particular culture or tradition. Consequentialist moral systems, which derive the "good" or "evil" of actions based on their outcomes, seem to me the best fit in this respect. By basing our ethical practice on the needs of the necessarily all-inclusive community of humanity, we can develop ethical standards and norms that serve humanity as a whole and are not therefore subject to the divisions of culture and tradition.

I'm certainly not arguing that such a change will be easy, but turning back to the failed moral systems of religious practice could be a disaster.

Regards,

Bill Snedden

[ February 04, 2002: Message edited by: Bill Snedden ]</p>

Bill Snedden

Interestingly enough, it appears that fundamentalist Christians have the highest rate of divorce in the U.S while the divorce rate for non-believers is less than half the national average (source: Barna Institute). I wonder why this would be if religion is such a "moral" influence?

Regards,

Bill Snedden

Undercurrent

The notion that one's belief in something should not be conditioned on the evidence for its veracity, but rather upon how belief in it would cause one to behave is both intellectually and morally repugnant.

Poverty and lack of education are much better predictors of whether or not a population will fall victim to social problems like crime and teenage pregnancy. Ameliorating those factors will do much more towards eliminating social ills than religion ever has.

m.

dangin

I too have not read this book, but just from hearing fromtherights defense of it, it is clear that the book lacks historical perspective. Moral decline in said book is apparently discussed within a window of now verses the last century. There is only 35,000 years of homo sapiens behavior to compare our current state of affairs too, but this guy focuses on the last 100 years, maybe even 200. Give me a break. Religion remains useless, actually it is counter productive so it is more than useless. Your (fromtheright) fascination with one book that struck you particularly well does not mean the book is worth a crap.

pug846

fromtheright said:

If you are actually interested, you can check out the book <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0691020019/qid=1012861567/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_14_1/102-8377850-1779300" target="_blank">here.</a> I will warn you that the book does presuppose some knowledge about modern philosophy. However, if you haven’t read a thing from any author since 1880, you should be fine.

If I had to compile a list of books that I thought every intellectual honest human being should read, at least 3 of Nietzsche’s books, including the Gay Science would be on there.

I think you missed my point altogether though. I could come in there and ask people to read quite a few random books and say if they haven’t read them, they aren’t intellectual courageous. I’m pretty well read (I think?) and I have neither heard of that book nor its author. The argument that it makes anyway is tired and old. I would be shocked if some no name made a huge improvement on the argument.

And as horrible as violent crime might be, I much more morally satisfied with our society today than in any other time in history. Could you please point to a time in U.S. history where our country was “more moral?”

Dark Jedi

I suspect it's because of two possible factors:

1) We can test drive 'em before we marry
2) If they test drive 'em, they HAVE to marry... whether they get along or not.

Orpheous99

Don't you see it is because of all of this freedoms and rights to a greater spread of humanity that the theists see this as being immoral. Only the select few faithful WASPs should be afford these things as those religious leaders like Robertson have stated. Afterall, to them the USA is a CHRISTIAN NATION and anyone who disagrees is immoral.

Orpheous99

Many of these things are themselves in decline. As is the control of religion. So, your so-called perception of a moral decline is false. In fact, as compared to much of history, this is one of the most moral times. It only seems worse because we are much more aware of events around as than our ancestors could ever imagine could be possible. I've said this many times before and I've keep saying it until people, like you, finally get it.

[ February 04, 2002: Message edited by: Orpheous99 ]</p>