Mageth

I think a little patriotism can be good, especially if it causes you to care for your countrymen.

I thought religion was what motivated us to be moral. Now it's patriotism as well?

So can science. There were many scientists who supported slavery on the basis of blacks supposedly being inferior.

Name a few. It may be that there's some truth to what you say, but I'd be willing to bet that they were religious men, who let their religion influence their science.

Indeed, it's science that has destroyed the inferior race myth, not religion.

[ March 07, 2002: Message edited by: Mageth ]</p>

luvluv

ohwilleke sez:

"Third, it isn't at all obvious that religious people have a lock on good deeds. It is true that many people in the Western world have claimed religious affiliation, and that people who have been exceptional are drawn from that pool. But, there are also many great figures in history (Socrates and Epicurius, Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine, Voltaire and members of the Shelly-Wolsencraft family, for example) who were not greatly influenced by religion, if they were influenced at all."

Firstly, I'll say that if you think Thomas Paine was not influenced by religion it would be wise for you to re-read Common Sense, the great majority of which was a purely BIBLICAL argument against absolute monarcy. Beyond that, did any of the above men (or women, I am not familiar with the Wolsencract family) give their lives to deeds which caused men afterwards to say that they revolutionized society?

I must remind you all that we are here talking about strictly MORAL advances in humanity. Paine and Jefferson certainly made great contribution to political thought, but does anyone treat people differently today as a result of the teachings or personal example of any of the afforementioned people? Whereas Jesus lived and died before most of the afforementioned people existed, and millions of people today daily try to treat people better as a result of his personal example.


"Important early English and American feminists were also either deists or atheists. Transendentalist figures like Thoreau and Emerson, who certainly had an important moral influence on the country (Thoreau, for example wrote the essay "civil disobedience" which became one of the touchstones for MLK, Jr.), left organized religion and were at best deistic or pantheistic in their beliefs. John Stuart Mills, an important figure in the history of moral theory, political theory and feminism, did not premise his moral argumetns on a theological basis, whatever he himself believed. "

Again, although I'll certainly give you Thoreau (Walden is actually one of my favorite books) as a contributor to MLK's philosophy, Thoreau does not rank as a great moral leader which is what we are discussing. The rest of the folks you mentioned did indeed contribute a great deal to political and social thought, but that is not the topic of this thread. And while I'll grant you that Thoreau was a rather outspoken Atheist I thought that Emerson was a preacher?

Without going into detail, all the wars you mention could easily be attributed to the grasp for power or land. The Crusades attacked the Middle East instead of other lands because the Middle East was rich with resources and wealth. Similarly, since the Church during the Middle Ages were essentially as powerful (if not more) than the states, the wars they fought were not strictly religious. The church owned huge amounts of land and were almost the co-leaders of countries along with their secular monarchies. All of those wars had a lot to do with land and property. And I thought the Irish didn't like the English because the English colonized them. I doubt they would have liked them much better if they were the same religion, we in America didn't .

It would be much easier to argue that Hitler exterminated Jews in the interest of science, specifically the science of eugenics, than in the name of religion. Hitler expressly targeted Jews for extermination because they were an inferior race, not because they crucified Jesus. Most historians would have very little respect for the argument that Hitler killed Jews because of his great devotion to Christ.

"Men like Richelieu, a Cardinal, and many of the English kings and queens were no shining example of morality despite their religiousity (one English King walked the streets in sackcloth)."

Again, not at all my point. I am not saying that religion makes all people good, I am saying that religion makes people who are capable of a greater good than non-religion can.

I think I can clarify my argument by saying that irreligion is incapable of producing "SAINTS". Saints would be defined as people who through their teachings and personal example change the individual relations of human beings for the better, and whose influence is felt on a personal level long after their deaths. (The kind of people who's pictures get hung up in living rooms ).

It would seem like Saints have a definite role in the moral advancement of human society, and it would seem like atheism is vastly inferior in terms of producing Saints.

tronvillain

luvluv:
You do realize that your position appears to be that the truth doesn't matter as long as people behave the way you want them to? If someone would not be willing to die for a cause without being decieved then I doubt the cause is worth dying for.

I don't believe at all, and giving my life isn't a terrifying prospect. Why someone who does believe in an afterlife would fear death esapes me. They might be afraid of going to hell, or the pain of dying, or not being with loved ones, but not death itself.

luvluv

JL sez:

"What if these martyrs and heroes of morality were moved by personal ambition and lust for power; have they not been afterall immortalized?

Indeed it was done in the name of a god, but you yourself mentioned this may only be a guise."

That's a very good point. I suppose I cannot argue that their motivation was entirely pure. However, does that really matter? The fact is they produced a great moral good in society, and no non-religious man has had a similar effect. I certainly hope MLK's motives were unselfish, but nevertheless largely as a result of his work I as an African-American can vote, live anywhere I can afford, and go to desegregated schools. No non-religious man has done as much for society.

Eudaimonia sez:

"I respect the accomplishments of Martin Luther King, Gandhi, and similar individuals. However, I would not place them above Thomas Edison, Henry Ford, Robert Goddard, Albert Einstein, and other productive and ingenious individuals who pursued their visions with excellence and determination."

With all due respect, I totally disagree. I think that what King and Gandhi have done is much more important than a light bulb, a car, or the nuclear bomb. Humanity could have gotten along fine forever without any of these things (not to say that this is the sum total of all of these folks accomplishments), but we cannot get along without peace. It is entirely possible that the work of Einstein in particular may yet destroy all life on the planet. I think Saints are much more important to the life of men than Pioneers.

Mageth sez:

"Name a few. It may be that there's some truth to what you say, but I'd be willing to bet that they were religious men, who let their religion influence their science."

I'm more willing to bet it was slaveholders who let their pocketbooks interfere with their science. Anyway, I can't name them off hand but go to your local library and pick up a book called "Africans in America" there is a section in the middle containing documents and drawings on the inferiority of the Negro, all scientific in origin.

"Indeed, it's science that has destroyed the inferior race myth, not religion."

But religion got there first and declared all men equal before there was science to back it up (i.e. the Abolitionists). It wasn't that science found that men were equal and subesequently men were free. It was relgious men who declared that men were equal, and eventually science caught up. (Due to legitimate advances. I am not sayint that science was immoral here, I am just saying that there was not sufficient technique or data availiable to prove that blacks were not inferior at that time).

luvluv

tronvillian sez:

"If someone would not be willing to die for a cause without being decieved then I doubt the cause is worth dying for."

Really, do you think that the freedom and equality of all men, black and white, was not worth dying for? You are saying you would rather blacks in America be slaves than to be freed by a religious man?

ju'iblex

No.
Untrue, in fact i'd argue that religion played a large part in helping racism and injustice along.

If we're going to look at Western European history, then a very likely explanation is the Church. Western history was written by religious men, hence the lack of women in major historical roles, and arguably, the lack of non-Christians in major historical roles.

And yes patriotism is bad, that word is an excuse for culture, race and religion based crimes.

So your argument is that only religious people can be moral?

i thought that was god actually.

and there are a lot more quotes condoning it. Inclusive? lol. If Christianity was inclusive then there wouldnt have been any need for black, feminist or gay activist groups to ever exist in the western world!

Oh, and if we're going to get on the subject of atrocities, lets talk about English language atrocities. For example, the use of that insidious little "word" youre using: "sez".

Vorkosigan

Steve Weinberg said it best: "Good people do good things, and bad people do bad things, but to get good people to do bad things, that takes religion."

Michael

luvluv

juiblex SAYS:

"If we're going to look at Western European history, then a very likely explanation is the Church. Western history was written by religious men, hence the lack of women in major historical roles, and arguably, the lack of non-Christians in major historical roles."

But it isn't history that records the works of Saints, it is people. We know who Jesus was not because we have so many extra-biblical documents to attest to him (we actually have very few) but because of the impact he had on people. But even if we just go on the last one hundred years, during which you would surely agree that historians would have a tougher time simply deleting a Gandhi from the history books, the pattern is the same. Even if you recall the history that has occured in your lifetime, I doubt you can name a notable non-religious Saint. I guess that religious men could have written great secular Saints out of history books, but then, God could have put dinosaur bones in the dirt to test our faith

luvluv

"Steve Weinberg said it best: "Good people do good things, and bad people do bad things, but to get good people to do bad things, that takes religion."

Or patriotism. Or capitalism. Or communism. Or science. Or the opportunity for personal advancement. Or hunger. Or lack. Or... a whole bunch of things.

As a side question, simply because most of you folks have decided not to have a religion, does that make religion a bad thing? And does that make people who have religion bad people?

99Percent

luvluv: Congratulations, you have reach the conclusion yourself. Religion is irrelevant as to whether it makes people good or bad.