a society without the moral imperative of religion

[Thats my opinion]

Since several of you continue to raise this issue about something I said in one of my original posts, let me respond to all of you at once.
I stand by the original statement: HOWEVER--I never said or believe that this is the ONLY moral imperative or value. I would never want to live in a society where a single religion--or a powerful combination of religions-- dominated the landscape. I would never want to live in a society where there were no non-believers to challenge the dickens out of pious religionists who thought they had the only truth. Nor would I want to live in a society were my only colleagues in the struggle for justice, peace Gay rights etc. were those of my or any religion. Nor would I want to live in a society beholden to fundamentalists--both religious and non-religious.

I will continue to see that liberal Christians are seen as part of the answer--even an essential part of the answer-- without ever thinking they they have either the whole answer or the only answer. Non believers are also essential partners to the answer.
This is what I believe and have maintained from the beginning--indeed for decades. I have written books about this perspective! If I have not been clear enough, I apologize.

[trotsky]

1. But yet you still think religious-based morality is superior to secular.

THAT'S the problem, and I don't know why you refuse to get it.

[Thats my opinion]

5. Come on now!

I never said that. Don't tell me that is what I think.
No, the problem is I don't think what you want me to think in order to make your negative assessment. Your need to have something religious to attack--and that is your problem, not mine.

[laconicsax]

7. Since you referred me up here, I'll respond here:

You continue to insist that you don't believe religion to be morally superior, yet every time you say so, you merely clarify that you don't believe that any specific religion is better.

You've said that you don't want a society which didn't base its morality on religion and that you don't want a society where a single religion dictates those morals. Those two ideas are not mutually exclusive in the least. The second merely clarifies that when you say "no one wants to live in a society" where morality isn't based on religion, you don't mean any specific religion.

The message of "religion is inherently morally superior" remains. Do you believe that a society where no one based their morality on solid religious faith is one in which you could live? Why or why not?

[trotsky]

8. I only attack religious bigotry.

I don't see it as a problem.

Perhaps if you could admit that yes, a society based on secular morality could be just as pleasant for us all to live in as one based on religious morality, we could put this to rest. Will you do that?

[Thats my opinion]

11. to both of you

The most livable societies are those with a plurality of ethical roots. A society based solely on a secular ethic-that is a non-religious ethic, or a society based solely on a religious ethic, would be equally dreadful. We have examples of both in history. All of them ended in tyranny.

Neither is superior. Both need the counterbalancing work of the other.

[skepticscott]

18. Why would anyone believe

that you could combine two dreadful ethics to get one good one? What ethical and moral principles are ONLY discoverable in a society based solely on a religious ethic?

[trotsky]

19. Your quote, yet again:

"None of us would want to live in a society without some sort of an ethical sensitivity based on solid religious faith."

First - can you tell me WHY this is the case? Why would none of us want to do this?

Second - couldn't it be argued that we have never known a world WITHOUT "some sort of an ethical sensitivity based on solid religious faith," that we inhabit one RIGHT NOW, and man's inhumanity to man is pretty much intolerable? Could it get worse? Sure. But how do you know for certain that it WOULD be worse if we didn't have "an ethical sensitivity based on solid religious faith"? It's never been tried!

[skepticscott]

9. What you said was

"None of us would want to live in a society without some sort of an ethical sensitivity based on solid religious faith."

Let's leave aside for the moment that you were presumptuously speaking for everyone, rather than just yourself. Have you ever said, written, or even thought "None of us would want to live in a society without some sort of an ethical sensitivity not based on solid religious faith."? If so, where? If not, why not?

[okasha]

10. Of course, if what Charles had written was,

"None of us would want to live in a society without some sort of an ethical sensitivity based on absence of religious faith," no one who still has his knickers in a twist--how many weeks later?--would have objected. But dredging it up every time the man posts certainly avoids substantive engagement with the issues or anything that might challenge the objectors' viewpoint.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

14. You think so?

Make a post stating just that, and I'll bet you see the same posters questioning its credibility as are questioning the credibility of the OP's statement.

[okasha]

15. Have a look at the responses to some of the current posts

advocating for something very like that position. Let me know when you see anyone questioning their credibility who has also harped for weeks on one sentence written by one poster.

[skepticscott]

17. And where would those responses be?

point them out, if you don't mind, and convince us that they really are "something very like that position"

[EvolveOrConvolve]

20. Could you point one of those out to me?

Thanks.

[okasha]

21. I could, except that that would constitute calling out a poster.

That's against the rules, as I'm sure you know.

[trotsky]

22. You can link to the threads though.

That's not a call-out.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

34. Go ahead and PM me with those

Thanks again.

[skepticscott]

16. And if he had written

that no one would want to live in a society that compromises its morals by tolerating homosexuality, would you have shrugged it off and forgotten it after a few weeks? Or would you still be calling him a raving homophobe?

It was a bigoted statement, of the kind he still claims to decry in others here (hence the continuing to bring it up). Maybe when he honestly addresses the motivation behind his original statement (which he still adheres to), it won't be brought up so often. But as long as he continues his rather awkward dissembling and backpedaling on the issue, expect the reminders to continue.

[Goblinmonger]

29. So if I were to make a post that said

"I fucking hate okasha. I wish they would never post in R/T again. Okasha is the stupidest person to ever have a keyboard" you are telling me that you would just forget about that. What TMO said was said and never retracted. Why should I forget it? It negates what he is saying all the time. Even now, given the chance, he can't bring himself to say that non-religious morality could be just as good a religious. It's his position. Why do you and he have a problem with it being brought up when it is clearly what he believes?

[Humanist_Activist]

40. That doesn't even make logical sense, how can you base ethics on the absence of something?

That doesn't mean ethics can't be based on values that aren't religious in nature. But the statement you made was nonsensical.

[skepticscott]

41. You can't, and it IS silly

Atheism (unlike religions) has nothing to say about how an atheist should behave or treat people. The important question is, why do you have to perform a religious litmus test at all when crafting or judging a system of morals and ethics?

My question above remains unanswered by the OP: What ethical and moral principles are ONLY discoverable in a society based solely on a religious ethic?

[Lint Head]

2. Republicans are Leviticus and Democrats are Matthew.

I'm not a super senior but I'm working on it.

[dtexdem]

3. Well, we've got RW religion without the moral imperative of a social conscience.

That part of religion is a total wash, morally speaking.

[Thats my opinion]

12. And it is an ethical disaster. Agreed?

It badly needs the counterbalance of another form of religion and the ethical imperative of the non-religious

[laconicsax]

4. Wow! It just keeps coming.

You keep trying to explain what you meant, and the explanation is exactly what we thought you meant.

[Thats my opinion]

6. see 5 n/t

[rrneck]

13. Busted again.

"I will continue to see that liberal Christians are seen as part of the answer--even an essential part of the answer-- without ever thinking they they have either the whole answer or the only answer Non believers are also essential partners to the answer."

Thanks for the bone. Too bad I left my catchers mitt in my other pants. You can't type fifty words without getting busted can you? So were all on the same team as long as we play with your equipment.

[Iggo]

23. Forget it.

Have a wonderful day.

:hi:

[dmallind]

24. I think people are carrying grudges a bit here.

I don't think the OP is or even was interested in demonizing the faithless. I just think he did not see why he needed to acknowledge their ethical foundation when he first appeared, but does so now. Yes it's still a bit grudgingly for my taste, and it seems like nothing good can be said about nonbelievers without, either explicitly or implicitly, claiming that believers are still better, but it's progress and it should be seen as such. It's after all difficult for believers, even and perhaps especially those who have spent some time studying the belief, to acknowledge that it is simply not necessary for a morally sound worldview. For unthinking Christians, nonbelievers are simply amoral at best and immoral at par. For thinking Christians, who see the at least proximal link between their own ethical system and their faith, nonbelievers missing that link will always be seen as handicapped ethically no matter how well they have adapted, and adopted, entirely secular moral foundations. It's like a "normal" athlete looking at an amputee with advanced prosthetics. No matter how fast the amputee can run, even if it's faster than the athlete can, there is still a perceived lesser status.

In short, nonbelievers simply cannot be merely equal, let alone better, moral agents regardless of how well this agency performs, because to belivers even at our best we have merely overcome a handicap that still leaves us less refined ethically than they are. I honestly think TMO is trying to do his best here, but he still sees the "artificial" morality of atheists no matter how successful it may be.

[rrneck]

25. Credit may be due

but it's hard to tell whether the OP is adjusting his point of view or his message to make it more palatable.

It would be nice to see convincing clarification.

[trotsky]

26. My impression leans far more to the latter than the former.

I, too, would love to see an unequivocal statement one way or the other.

[Goblinmonger]

31. But he did demonize the faithless.

And continues to do so. And when given the chance will not go back on what was said. That's not a grudge; that's just reminding him of his position when he calls people out on the same thing. The whole plank/speck thing.

[Thats my opinion]

35. Where did you see I believe that non-believers have an inferior moral root age

artificial or inferior moral rootage? If I ever said that I seriously mis-spoke. It may just be a different path, and we all have something to learn from one another's journey.

I think you have heard me mostly, probably because you have the grace to listen as well as opine. Grace far removed from any religious motivation.
Thanks

[onager]

27. Had to sneak this one in, didn't you?

Nor would I want to live in a society beholden to fundamentalists--both religious and non-religious.

Can you point out some of these "non-religious fundamentalists?" Of course not - you and your believin' buddies have been asked to do that repeatedly, and you always respond with confusing bafflegab about Hitchens/Gnu Atheists/bla-bla-bla. Oh, and those awful billboards!

Y'all also complain a lot about the most dangerous non-religious movement in the world today - the dozen or so snarky atheists on DU. That's sarcasm. And yes, I occasionally call myself a "Fundamentalist Atheist." But mostly to annoy the twits who use that term.

I would never want to live in a society where a single religion--or a powerful combination of religions--dominated the landscape.

Well, I hate to break this to you...but assuming you're American, that's exactly the society you're living in right now.

Or would you care to argue that modern American religious society is NOT dominated by Xianity? Hint - turn on your TV set any Sunday morning.

Even as I write this, Congress is trying to eliminate any spending on contraception. How much support for that stupidity is coming from the non-religious?

Oh, sure, at some point in the future, you and your fellow Lib'rul Xians will climb down from your ivory towers and sit around the campfire singing Kum-Ba-Yah with the Xian Fundies. You'll still be blathering about the wonderfulness of Jim Wallis and Karen Armstrong when the Fundies are shoving you into the cattle cars. By that time, we atheists will have already disappeared - if history is any indication, right after the Jews. And you'll probably believe the Fundies when they tell you we were the first groups to be Raptured.

Later you wrote: A society based solely on a secular ethic - that is a non-religious ethic, or a society based solely on a religious ethic, would be equally dreadful. We have examples of both in history. All of them ended in tyranny.

AFAIK, we don't have any historical examples of a "non-religious ethic" competing on level ground with a religious ethic, for centuries, until one or the other triumphed over the hearts and minds of the people.

But none of history's secular societies just suddenly popped up out of nowhere. They came from societies with centuries of national religious belief behind them - whether you're talking about France in 1789 or Cambodia in 1975.

In fact, Cambodia's a good example of a suddenly secular society and how it got that way. In his massive bio of Pol Pot, Anatomy of a Nightmare, Philip Short provided some answers:

Finally, (Short) looked at the national culture. Where Maoism was "colored by Confucianism," he said, in Cambodia Stalinism-Leninism was influenced by Theravada Buddhism, the belief system of some 90 percent of the Khmer people. "This is a religion of compassion, but it teaches renunciation of the material world..." He concluded that the Khmer Rouge were "a violent monastic sect" with similarities to a cult.

http://www.international.ucla.edu/article.asp?parentid=21630

Westerners were baffled when the Khmer Rouge emptied Phnom Penh of several million people and banned money. But both of those ideas came straight from their religious beliefs - the belief that cities were evil influences corrupting naturally decent rural people, and renunciation of the material world's most visible symbol - money.

I have written books about this perspective!

Oh! The argument from Personal Authority! With an exclamation point! Impressive!

You've made that claim about writing books many times, so I have to ask - have any of your books actually been published? By someone other than yourself and your printer, I mean.

Well, here's an idea for your next book, and it should be a piece of cake. Just write your book the same way you write your OP's in here - bundle up the most popular complaints about Atheist Fundamentalists from your fellow believers, ruthlessly eliminate any original thoughts, then regurgitate what's left in your incredibly condescending and obtuse style. If you can work in a few miracles, the Oprah Book Club might go for it.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

28. The Pol Pot bit reminds me a lot of American right-wingers...

...praising the wholesomeness of rural red-state backwaters and deeming New York City "not Real America".

There's a connection there.

[trotsky]

30. Well done, sir.

Another classic from onager!

[Goblinmonger]

32. Bravo! +1,000,000 n/t

[laconicsax]

33. He just can't help himself.

I doubt it's even intentional.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

46. Like the scorpion biting the frog mid-river in the fable.

I hear there's a version that's even more depressing. In it, the scorpion has a daughter that throws him a line from a branch above, and only the frog dies.

[Humanist_Activist]

36. Where is this "moral imperative of religion"?

From what I can see of liberal Christians, they take their moral cues from enlightenment values, not anything related to their religion, indeed, their religion and their ethics are completely separate, as far as sources are concerned. And that's a good thing, those who do attempt to take cues from their religion, Christianity in this case, end up like Fred Phelps and his Church, or the many other right wing churches out there.

Most Christians I know take their morals and ethics from sources far outside the Bible and the Church, indeed this is how modern society can function at all. Secular ethics change with the times when needed, religious ethics don't, and so they are replaced. Of course, sourcing everything is a pain, prohibitions against murder, stealing, lying, etc. are in the Bible, but then again, they are everywhere, most likely a result of us being a social species, so they cannot be considered religious in any way.

We already live in a society that is largely without the moral imperative of religion, and that's a good thing, why do you want to change that?

[laconicsax]

38. I feel obliged to point something out.

Typically, someone says that they get their morals from the Bible, what they do is find passages which agree with their existing moral code and pass on the rest.

A good way to test this is to ask someone who says that their morals come from the Bible how they feel about three passages: Leviticus 24:16, 1 Peter 3:1, and Jeremiah 22:3. If they get their morals from the Bible, they should regard these 3 equally. More likely, they'll offer excuses for why they reject the first two and like the third. There's no rational argument to be made for why they do that if they truly get their morals from the Bible.

[Humanist_Activist]

39. That's true, and that is how Christianity has survived through the years...

another favorite is the old canard of interpretation, and while some Bible verse are vague and subject to interpretation, not all of them are. The mental leaps and cognitive loops some Christians go through to make their Bible seem still relevant today become absurd.

[Thats my opinion]

42. If you had the slightest awareness

of the technical nature of Bible study, you might soften your diatribe. You hold to the same literalism regarding the Bible that the Christian fundamentalists hold. They hold it because they think it comes from the mouth of God. You hold it because it gives you an argument. Neither of you seriously deal with the production and interpretation of the literature which we call the Bible.

[okasha]

43. Damn skippy!

n/t

[skepticscott]

44. You don't seem to have the slightest awareness

of how atheists and anti-theists here regard the Bible. We DON'T "hold to the same literalism regarding the Bible that the Christian fundamentalists hold." We understand that the Bible is a cobbled together collection of myths, stories, poetry, historical fiction, agenda-driven religio-political propaganda, and the like. We know that it is not the true and inspired word of "God". We get that. We get it better than a lot of Christians, and if we focus on Biblical literalism, it's because the people that adhere to it (or at least pretend to) are the most likely to try to impose their beliefs on everyone else, whether we like it or not, and whether it's legal or not. We also highlight Biblical literalism because so many "liberal" and "progressive" Christians make the false claim that fundamentalists make up only a tiny fringe minority.

If you'd start over with that understanding, then we might be able to have a discussion.

[Humanist_Activist]

45. Its not technical, its arbitrary, both for so called fundamentalists and those who are more liberal.

Both types cherry pick what they like, try to reinterpret troubling passages, and then discard those they can't reinterpret.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

47. First.

[Silent3]

48. Astrologers can, if they wish, bring a huge amount of technical expertise...

...to bear derived from scientific astronomy. No degree of precision in the calculation of planetary orbits, however, no amount of working in newly discovered moons of Saturn or dwarf planets beyond the orbit of Pluto, will save astrology from being bunk.

To the extent that Biblical scholars are merely trying to better understand the culture and language of those who wrote the Bible, I have no argument with that endeavor. What I consider an unfounded premise, however, is that just because something is in the Bible, it must be wise or even divine. When you start with that premised, and a Biblical passage doesn't seem to you to be wise or divine, then the problem is becomes your problem, for not yet having discovered the supposedly best translation of some bit of ancient Greek or Aramaic, for taking something literally when you supposedly should take it figuratively, or vice versa.

[rrneck]

49. The technical study of

literature is called literary criticism.

Why should your literature deserve any greater cultural importance than any other?

[Starboard Tack]

37. Your honesty is both appreciated and inspirational