Indifference

Give me a democratic atheist nation and i'll give you one that succeeded.

The problem is there haven't been any.

Indifference

to my knowledge anyway.

Indifference

Let me also say, that an atheist nation must be as such by freedom of religion. The people must choose to be atheist. I won't argue with you if you're saying that nations who force religion (or atheism) will fail... communist OR democratic

owleye

James...

I'm not particularly attracted to a topic that is specifically about the person having this or that position, but I'll go ahead and respond, as if the topic was rather about the position, and not about the person.

1. Religion is part of the fabric of who we are.

This doesn't seem particularly controversial, though I'd say that "who we are" is not necessasrily set in stone, incapable of alteration. I'd give this ability to put cracks in our architecture, not allowing our existence to dictate our essence, to be inextricably who we are as well -- namely we have a certain amount of freedom to change ourselves.

2. It is foolish to rid ourselves of religion.

Well, this needs support, unless you think there is an independent reason for being "realistic". Just as realism is part of who we are, so also is idealism. We live in both worlds, and I'd say it is the latter which is the more important, not the former.

3. "But many nonbelievers hold out hope for a religious-free future."

If this is true, I would rather think they would merely "wish" for a "religious-free future" rather than having a legitimate hope for it. Having a legitimate hope rather presupposes a kind of religious experience, something I suspect they would wish to deny. How comes you to regard it this way?

4. "With us still is Star Trek’s powerful metaphor in which everyone is a perfect humanist; yet, isn't the fascistic Federation, where everyone works in service of the state, a bit too creepy for comfort?"

I'm not sure what connection this has to your argument. Are you denying the legitimacy of an ideal held by your interlocutor merely on the basis that you find it creepy? This rather goes against the entire thread of your embracing all beliefs held by others.

5. "Far from wishing to wipe the slate clean in some kind of psychic pogrom, the new atheist should embrace these various forms of ritual as something uniquely human. This is who we are.

This is quite insufficient, I think, to dispel dreams. By the same argument, you are condoning warfare, criminality, deceit, and the many forms of profligacy.

6. "Disbelief in God does not mean that one must excise respect or even admiration for the rich tapestry of human life in all of its rituals, observances, and quirks."

This almost appears to be an appeal to voyeurism, rather than an acceptance of the faith itself. If the shoe were on the other foot, how would this affect your argument?

"Far from desiring a soulless existence, atheists should embrace the "religious impulse" and see it for what it is: a very naturalistic human desire to find value and meaning in an uncaring universe."

If it is natural for some, but unnatural for others, then why should those who find it unnatural -- i.e., disbelievers -- require anything more than a tolerance? Why must they fully embrace it? Indeed, how can it be fully embraced without a full belief?

owleye

boneyard bill

Indifference writes:

Exactly.

Bill

I meant, of course, that the government, which is (as you suggest) synonimous with "the state," would take over the functions of the church. That would be a really bad thing because then the government would enforce moral dictates through the compulsion of the police powers of government.

When church and state are combined into one entity, it is absolutly NOT "left to the individual to find his own 'truth.'" Instead, you get the most despotic sort of ruling heirarchy. The record of history is fairly clear on this point.

The functions of church which government cannot (or at least, should not) provide are:

• Standards of moral conduct beyond the requirements of law. Governmental laws should require or prohibit only the minimum standards necessary for the protection of the society at large. The church should inspire both those standards and a set of higher standards for an ideal state of moral conduct. There should always be a substantial gap between the minimum standards of conduct required to avoid trouble with the government and the highest standards of conduct, which are held up as "good examples" for people to follow.
• Calling people to selfless support of a larger group or goal. People will naturally tend to be selfish; this selfishness is, on the whole, bad for the advancement of society. The church is an organized way of motiviating people to selfless behavior without the inherently coercive force of government behind it.
• Assistance in the dissipation of "bad" emotions (like guilt, grief, etc.), and the experiencing of "good" emotions (like joy, etc.), all within the contstraints of morally acceptable conduct.
• Overall, the function of the church is the creation of a happy, mentally healthy citizenry which is outwardly-focused (or unselfishly generous) on the achievement of "good things" for the larger group (community; state; or, in the best case, all of humanity).
• In the "carrot/stick" analogy, the church is the "carrot" and the government is the "stick." Too much "stick" is bad for society. Thus, the church has a valid function of providing the "carrot" to motivate "good" conduct.
• I am sure I'm leaving something out here, but I'm just typing away in a sort of "stream of concsiousness" fashion; thus, I reserve the right to add anything else I might think of later.

Hopefully, this post will give you a better idea of the sorts of things I'm thinking of here.

== Bill

Bill

An elected government operates at the mental level of the "least common denominator" of the electorate (the "least common denominator" is defined in this sense by the lowest mental level necessary to obtain a majority vote for any given candidate). This is not a way of obtaining "competancy," nor of setting "rules, laws, and moral standards" in a fashion that would be representative of what "the best and the brightest" of humanity might be able to produce.

Philosophically, due to the above situation, the elected government must be restricted to the establishment of rules, laws, and moral standards that are the "minimum necessary" for a person to be considered "human" (rather than "animal"). It is impossible for an elected government to create something that is "larger than life" and which will inspire the "best and the brightest" to achieve greatness on behalf of all of humanity.

Government has real power. The government has the right to kill you. To all intents and purposes, your life is totally subject to the whims of those who control the government. As a philosophical (Philosophy of Politics) situation, you should never desire government to have too much power; to set too high of a standard; nor to operate too efficiently.

On the other hand, in order to get the best results out of people, we need higher standards than those which are possible within the context of an elected government. Traditionally, those standards are non-obligatory (optional), voluntary, etc.; and traditionally, those standards are set through religious means (in some way; and here, I am attempting to speak as broadly as possible about religion in the context of human history). It is the NECESSARY function of religion to call people to be something better than "the minimum standards required," and to establish some sort of system of rewards for those who meet those far higher standards ("sainthood" in Christian theology fulfills this role; "enlightenment" in Buddhism would fill a similar role). It is simply not possible for an elected government to establish and/or manage these sorts of issues. See my prior post, above, for a more general response as to your "functions" question.

As for charity, while atheists are not without generosity, they are, by and large, one of the most tight-fisted of all known demographic groups. I would assert that there are a plethora of reasons for this fact, but my number-one reason is the lack of "group identification" among most atheists. In other words, most atheists do not see themselves first and foremost as being part of an "atheist community," but rather see themselves as individual atheists first and members of some sort of very loose group of atheists as a very distant second, and there is little in the way of a "strong commitment" to that larger group.

Even when you have wealthy atheists who want to give to charity, they will by-and-large embrace some larger cause (such as education or Ted Turner's UN commitment) rather than some "atheist" cause. Consequently, even these few exceptions do not get credited to "atheists" but rather get submurged into the overall good of the causes to which the contributions are made.

If the whole world were atheistic, I really do have to wonder whether or not there would be any real charity left. I continue to feel that we need some channel for a voluntary organization that will call people to perform a higher good by contributing to humanity. I'm afraid that the history of the world and the history of the humanist movement itself doesn't offer any real hope for these expressions of yours.

In the absence of a larger group with the respect and authority of a church, people will tend to become more selfish, and selfishness is one of the real causes of warfare. While religious war is ever-present down through human history, the largest wars have always been fought over issues of control over land and people. By and large, those are issues of "greed" (or "selfishness") rather than issues of religious differences.

And the history of the atheist/humanist movements here in the United States is a history replete with factionalism and splintering into disparate groups for virtually no reason other than the particular personalities involved. It thus seems impossible to me that "with nothing supernatural to argue and war over... humans will discover a unity like never before." Rather, it seems that the opposite is true: with nothing supernatural to bind us together, we will argue and war over the most trivial of personally selfish objectives.

== Bill

Bill

And I can't conceive of there ever being any, if mere atheism is all that you have to bind the nation together.

Again, the record here in the United States of the factionalism and power battles within atheist groups clearly demonstrates to me that when atheists are left to govern themselves, they won't ever agree to a common course of action, nor is it possible to organize them in any meaningful sense. As the old saw goes, organizing atheists is like "herding cats." You won't ever succeed, but you will really annoy the cats!

Consequently, a nation of those self-selected atheists could never succeed because it could never be formed, let alone survive! To succeed (and survive) at that level, there has to be some larger ideal that holds people together in spite of their minor differences of opinion. Mere atheism cannot be that "larger ideal." Thus, I have no hesitation whatsoever in predicting that without some other "larger ideal," there will never be a successful "atheist nation." (Others have pointed out elsewhere that Communism essentially became a substitute for religion in the Communist nations, and on that basis, the fact that they were atheistic was largely irrelevant.)

== Bill

Ted Hoffman

Religion doesnt have to be replaced by atheism. We have other non-atheistic groups like secular humanists who can embrace noble pursuits like morality, generosity and selflessness.

When we push religion aside the vaccum it leaves behind doesnt have to be filled by either religion or the government (if the politicians do not grab the luscious opportunity) other groups can come in.

Bill is looking at it from the lessons history has taight us, but back then, mankind was very unreasonable, gullible, afraid and in an unstable (politically) world.

People are more educated and can come up with pragmatic approaches for keeping the society together. I dont go to church and I dont dance to gospel music.
++ Does that mean my standards of moral conduct are low?
++ Does that mean I cannot join a larger group for selfless support?
++ Does that mean I do not have a channel for dissipating bad emotions and sharing good emotions?
++ does that mean that I am not happy and mentally healthy?
++ does that mean I have no carrot I am after and no stick after me?

No it does not. The church doesnt have to be the only way. People still come together in sports and other recreational activities. People can still come together in organised meetings, birthday parties, funerals, weddings, schools and colleges and festivals.

If these are not adequate, people can come up with other means. Bars, clubs and so on. Frankly, we are far too advanced to only let God make us do things. The stick and carrot mentality represents man at his basest. Anything relying on it is holding us back from our actual potential.

When we push aside the church, thats when we will realize its weighing us down and not "mellowing" us.

If people can become healthy on a diet of lies, then they are indeed sick.

Ierrellus

And now for something completely different--Monte Python.

The onus of thinking requires a sabbatical of irrationality. What will it be-- religion, primal screams, opium, etc.?


Ierrellus