Vorkosigan

But I still think the adjustment to my argument is a more accurate representation of proof than your argument, which I believe would be that religion is irrelavent to achieving great moral acts.

Why no, that is not my position. My position is that religion is entirely relevant to great moral acts; in fact, it has a very strong influence on them -- it reduces their number and effectiveness. It is easy to forget that MLK's opposition was as religious as he was. But for Christianity (though certainly not the only factor), MLK would not have been necessary. But for her Christianity, Mother Teresa would probably have been a very effective advocate for the poor in India, and done much good. As it is, because of her devotion to suffering, she has done no good at all, and diverted vast sums of energy and funding to a worthless cause. Of course, the British elites who opposed Gandhi were Protestant Christian almost to a man. Gandhi was/is also opposed by Hindu fundamentalist religious wackos.

In short, saints are what religions create in order to get around the problems they cause. As biographers have noted, many Catholic priests would have liked to shut down Dorothy Day, but did not dare, for it was obvious even to her many enemies inside the conversative Church that she was on the way to sainthood.

Michael

luvluv

I'd just like to open this response by saying that my purpose here was not to demean atheism, merely to point out one area where it would seem to be inefficient. I have noticed that both of my posts seem to be drawing an ire I admit I had not expected. I came to this board recommended by some friends with whom I discuss these types of topics on another board, and he informed me that you folks enjoy a good intellectual discussion, as do I. However, I think it's important to keep in mind that being on opposing sides does not make people enemies, in any real sense. Having said that...

I disagree with atheism, but you will NEVER catch me trying to smear the reputation of anyone simply BECAUSE he is an atheist, certainly not if he was a good man. This is the kind of thing I expect from organized religion (which, incidentally, I am not a part of) and not when dealing with people who are supposed to be using reason in their decision making. I emphasized over and over and over again that the personal failings of the Saints absolutely do not enter into my argument. I don't know how many times, or in how many different ways you guys want me to say this. I am sure if I looked into the life of Confucious or Marx or any of the rest of the folks you mentioned, I could find grevious sins. DOES IT MATTER AT ALL? This business of tearing folks down smacks of politics, and it can go on and on and on and never prove anything but that we are too interested in the faults of others and have paid too little attention to at least one of our own... that of being the tailbearer.

No, I do not know what Hitchens said about Mother Theresa and I will not read it. AGAIN, if anyone would like to discontinue their discussion with me on that point.... ADIEU. I am aware of what Martin Luther King said about the Jews and I am aware of the context, yet again... THIS IS TOTALLY IRELLEVANT TO THE DISCUSSION. Really folks, if you are going to be so silly as to scrounge through VOLUMES of the lives of great, self-sacrificing people to find one shred evidence with which to smear them, if the very fact that a man has religion compels you to therefore have to find some mark on his name that you may assure yourself that all religion is wrong all the time (a statement emphatically unsupportable by reason) in short if you are going to be that silly... you might as well join organized religion.

Moving on...

ex-preacher:

Might we not assume, since all of the people of Isreal asked God for a king, and since God gave them a king, though he did not want them to have one... that God was being democratic?

If God imposed democracy on them, though they pleaded with Him for a monarchy, would you not be now calling God a tyrant on those grounds?

And why would you fault God, after the people had pled with him for a king, for endeavoring to give the people the best possible king?

The Bible does not proffer any suggestions for government, because the Bible is not a political primer. That is among the things Jesus meant when he said render unto Caesar the things that are Caesars. Remembering the context of the statement, recall that man who asked Jesus about whether or not it was reasonable to pay taxes was trying to bait Jesus into taking a position on the Roman occupation of Isreal. Jesus statment could be read to mean that he declined to, as far as was possible to him, be drawn into temporal political debates. He was not interested in the temporal affairs of government, he was interested in the moral lives of all men. I believe he very much did not want his words to be used simply as propaganda for one form of government or another. He was after men's hearts.

But YET AGAIN, this is totally beside the point. I am not arguing for the perfect political philosophy of the Bible, I am merely arguing that it appears as if some sort of commitment to religion is necessary for Sainthood. In fact, I am so tired of REPEATING this, that I shall for the rest of this discussion simply refuse to answer any questions that are off topic, since it is an unfair waste of my time (being that I am one, and you are many).

turt says:

"But for Christianity (though certainly not the only factor), MLK would not have been necessary."

Do you really believe that? Does anyone?

And yet again, TOTALLY IRRELAVENT. The people who fought for abolition first and most strenuously were RELIGIOUS PEOPLE. The rest of the information you are providing me with is for another thread.

Also, the fact that many of the people who supported a lot of evil causes were also religious is not relevant to the point at all.

I am not saying that in every instance, relgion makes people better than they would have been without it. That is FAR, FAR from reality. We all know this, and no one is arguing otherwise.

My point was that religion seems to be necessary for great acts of morality.

P.S.

It seems in some research I did this morning that even Confucious BELIEVED in God, he just prefered not referrring to Him in discussing morals. While not emphasizing a personal God, he did continually reference Heaven in a way in which I'm sure few of you would approve. There are even passages in the 6 principle books of Confucianism that blatantly mention God, and it seems that Confuciasts actually worship the spirit of Confucious as a deity. He certainly can't be blamed for that, but... it would certainly seem that the man himself was not an atheist, so I would think that puts him on my side. I'm sure Michael will have something to say about that, however.

I'm sorry if the first part of my post was a little rancorous. I am trying to be respectful of your beliefs and of your heroes, I would appreciate the same respect.

luvluv

Totally idle questions:

Is it necessary to believe that all religion is always bad in order to be an atheist?

If you have to admit one thing that religion does well, does that diminish the position of atheism?

ex-preacher

No. In fact, I am a religious atheist. I'm a Unitarian Universalist.

<strong> No, but I find the notion of categorizing all religion under one heading to be absurd. "Religion" cannot do something well since it is merely a term which describes people who are devoted to something (a very loose definition). What they are devoted to and why can make a world of difference. How would you define "religion"?

As I said earlier, can we all agree that religion tends to increase fanaticism (a high degree of commitment)? Again, the outcome of that fanaticism can be very good or very bad.

As to whether religion has produced more good than bad, that is an open question.

luvluv

ex-preacher says:

"we all agree that religion tends to increase fanaticism (a high degree of commitment)? Again, the outcome of that fanaticism can be very good or very bad."

I almost agree. My only point of contention would be that it is not necessary to be religious (in the classic sense of the word) to do fantastic evil (Stalin, for example) but you would seem to need some type of religion to do fantastic good.

What, pray tell, is a religious atheist? I half-way read a book called "God and Other Famous Liberals" by Forrester Church (sp?). Anyway, it seemed to me like he was saying a U.U. was basically a Christian who had decided he can't really prove that any other religion is false, since he doesn't know everything, and just decides to leave everybody to their own faith. Let God sort em out, that sort of thing. Is that accurate? I guess not.

Brian K.

I've gotten the gist of what is going on here and love this type of debate, but am disturbed by recent responces. One thing i would like to point out is that Atheism is not a religion. If one is an Atheist, he/she merely don't beleive in God.

Ion

Not necessarily.

Brian K.

Very True Ion.

Brian K.

To reply on the topic of Saints, i think saints are fantastic and noble people for their actions. Even if that person is very rude in real life. People like MLK, Mother Teresa, and Mohatma Gandhi have impacted my life and i am not Catholic, or Muslim, or Protestant, or Hindu. I think people like those mentioned above are very inspiring and there is need for more of such people today. I think these people have tought the world volumes on humanitarianism and Equal-Right-ism, or something like that.

Vorkosigan

I am genuinely perplexed by the your comments about "ire." Can you point to any specific comments directed to you that show "ire?"

You appear to be suffering from some confusion here. When we attack your ideas, we are not attacking you. We do not confuse the two, and we hope you do not.

No, I do not know what Hitchens said about Mother Theresa and I will not read it.

I am sorry that you are determined not to confront facts brought to light by the Indians themselves, and made available to Hitchens by them, and by former employees and coworkers of MT. But let me gently suggest that persisting in an attitude of "I will ignore facts I don't like" will not enhance your credibility on this forum.

Additionally, no one has engaged in a "smear" campaign. MT's praise of the brutal Albanian dictator Enver Hoxha, her association with the Duvaliers, and her authoritarian religious, political, and social values are a matter of public record.

Well, ignorance can be cured, but deliberate deafness can only be waited out.

Further, I have suggested at least one alternative to you: Dorothy Day. Do you even know who she was? Someone I admire.

It seems in some research I did this morning that even Confucious BELIEVED in God, he just prefered not referrring to Him in discussing morals. While not emphasizing a personal God, he did continually reference Heaven in a way in which I'm sure few of you would approve. There are even passages in the 6 principle books of Confucianism that blatantly mention God, and it seems that Confuciasts actually worship the spirit of Confucious as a deity. He certainly can't be blamed for that, but... it would certainly seem that the man himself was not an atheist, so I would think that puts him on my side. I'm sure Michael will have something to say about that, however.

Yes, Luv. I do. Confucius did not believe in gods, supernatural entities and similar. He left strict instructions with his followers that he was not to be deified, worshipped, made a religion of, etc. Not that they paid the slightest attention. One aspect of his legacy is a strong strain of Confucian skepticism epitomized by the great Wang Chung, the first century scholar.

I am not going to get into how the Confucian idea of Heaven, which really stands for something like "the natural order of things" differs radically from your notion. I suggest you read the second volume of Needham's Science and Civilization in China, any good book on Confucian philosophy, etc. Confucius himself, however, was an atheist who did not favor religion and strictly forbade his followers from manufacturing one.

"But for Christianity (though certainly not the only factor), MLK would not have been necessary."

Do you really believe that? Does anyone?

And yet again, TOTALLY IRRELAVENT. The people who fought for abolition first and most strenuously were RELIGIOUS PEOPLE. The rest of the information you are providing me with is for another thread.

You really need to look into some history. The principle opposition to slavery in the US came from three groups -- fringe Christian groups, such as the Quakers, individuals with strong feelings, and secularists/atheists. Mainstream Christianity strongly approved of slavery, and justified it with the many Bible quotes on it. There are some excellent articles at Infidels on the topic. The Quakers were strongly opposed by mainstream Christians -- in fact, the puritans exiled them and used to hang Quakers if they caught them, the last execution was in 1661 in Boston, I believe.

I suggest you take a gander at Abolitionist, Actuary, Atheist: Elizur Wright and the Reform Impulse. by Lawrence Goodheart, an academic biography of a great American atheist and antislavery activist. Wright became an atheist precisely because mainstream Christianity was so pro-slavery. Our only atheist President, Lincoln, was another famous 19th century abolitionist.

This is not to deny that Christians did not oppose slavery. Many most certainly did, including the black churches. However, most denominations did not. The Pope had personal slaves until 1789 and anti-slavery works remained on the Index until well after 1800. As late as 1839 the Pope pronounced that the institution of slavery was OK so long as it was not "unjust." RCC bishops in the South agreed that this did not apply to them &lt;whew&gt;. In 1866, in response to the 13th amendment, the Vatican issued a statement reaffirming its support for slavery. Not until 1917 was Canon Law expanded to cover that issue. Meanwhile, the highly religious Arabs were still slavetaking out of East Africa, the last slave, whose relatives I once met, going out of Takaungu in Kenya in 1937.

Meanwhile the Underground Railroad was run by Cogregationalists, Methodists, Quakers, Mennonites and Unitarians, all fringe groups except for the Methodists. Methodism for this reason became popular among slaves. the Baptists carefully avoided the issue, and in the 1840s finally split over it, but prior to that never condemned it. The Methodists split over the failure of the denomination to forbid members to own slaves. Even progressive denominations couldn't come right out and do the right thing. By 1861 all of the Protestant denominations had split off minority groups that supported abolition, but could not convince the majority to adopt it as a position. Think about that, Luv.

So yes, without the overt and tacit support of Christianity, black chattel slavery in the south would have been IMPOSSIBLE. That is why people like MLK were laer necessary, because Christians had to be prodded by secularists and fringe members of their own religion to move on slavery; and in fact, a war had to be fought to make them stop and even still Christians remain at the forefront of racist movements in the US. You cannot join the KKK without being a Christian, for example....and of course, the Christian Reconstructionists and Christian Identity Movements advocate a return to slavery. American Atheists do not.

And finally, as to your general point about morality and religion, I suggest you compare crime rates between believing US and unbelieving Europe and Japan. Never mind Iran and Pakistan. Great things are being done there, I hear, by all those religious people. Look how advanced they are compared to the hopelessly backward Netherlands.

Michael

[ March 09, 2002: Message edited by: turtonm ]

[ March 09, 2002: Message edited by: turtonm ]</p>