Nearly ten years ago, on the 15th September, 2001, I read this piece in the Guardian, by Richard Dawkins.
I was a theist then, a catholic, in fact, by conversion, in my early twenties, having been baptized in the Episcopal Church of Scotland, sung at matins every Sunday until from age 8 to 11, sent to a Quaker boarding school, where I was devout, if rebellious, and became a Friend, later being confirmed at a High Church Anglican church in Devon, and finally, having married a catholic, feeling I had “come home” to the catholic church.
Always liberal, though – when I was being prepared for reception into the catholic church by the university chaplain, a Benedictine called Fr Fabian Cowper, he asked me if I had any concerns. I said, yes: contraception and papal infallibility. He replied: well, contraception is a good example of papal fallibility. So I thought I’d be OK. It was still not that long after Vatican II, liberation theology was in the air, and the Dominicans in Oxford were regular attenders at the Greenham Common protests, and there was a sense that the church might be a slow vast tanker but the People of God would turn it round. I hung on in there, even when my mother, who later converted herself, was temporarily excommunicated for publishing a book that argued that the church’s moral teaching on medical ethics was mostly wrong (a Jesuit professor of moral theology preached the eulogy at her requiem mass, and paid tribute to her for “having the courage to say what we dare not”, and for having had more faith in her church than her church had had in her. But looking back, that piece in the Guardian was the beginning of the end.
I remember thinking, and saying to my fairly recently bereaved father: “he makes a devasting point – it will be interesting to see how the churches rise to the challenge”.
But they didn’t. There were a couple of peeved responses, IIRC, but no-one took up the challenge. No-one had anything to say to rebut the charge that religion was not just not the defender of morality, but its actual enemy.
I think there is a rebuttal. But it’s a sad reflection on religion IMO that the response has been so pathetic.
Ideology should have died that day. I don’t think religion is the only evil ideology, and it seems to be a human tragedy that the worst deeds are done in the name of some perceived greater good rather than out of simple brutal appetite. One of the most evil things in the world seems to me to be the conviction that your own views are right. Hence the strapline to this blog.
It’s not so much that religion itself is an evil ideology, as that it can easily lend itself to being used for evil.
During my youth, I was a theist. But I began to see more and more problems with the organized Churches, and probably would have dropped out for that reason. However, I also spent time reading the Bible, and from that I eventually concluded that Christianity, and probably all religions, are just human constructs. Put simply, the Christian Bible does not support Christian theology, except by extreme contortion.
The major problem with religion is that, by committing yourself to faith, you are giving up the right to make your own choices (including your own moral choices). And that makes you more easily susceptible to manipulation by those who would use religion as a form of control over people. That is what makes possible those “misguided missiles” that Dawkins discusses.
I think in one sense, Dawkins is incorrect – you don’t need the incentive of a balmy afterlife to inspire people to sacrifice their lives for some greater good – the Japanese kamikaze did it for honour alone, as far as I know, or, simply, because they were ordered to and they, like religious people, put a high value on obedience.
That’s why I was so disappointed at the total failure of religious leaders to rise to Dawkins’ challenge. It seems to me that there is one – that the real “elephant in the room” is not belief in an afterlife, but obedience to an ideal that one is convinced is absolute. Or maybe they saw that, and realised it would simply move them from the frying pan into the fire.
I probably said this before, but I once confessed that I could never go to the stake for a belief. Then someone else said: “but you would go to the stake for the right to remain uncertain”. I think that’s probably true – or at least for the right to change my mind. I’m usually pretty certain about what I currently believe to be true, just not convinced that it is true.
I think a proper indoctrination by any church also occurs on an emotional level, not simply inellectual.
I saw a show on TV once where a doctor was explaining the the feelings of a man who was sure that his parents had been replaced by look-alikes.
When people see images of others that they recognize, a section of the brain lights up. When they see someone they love, another section lights up in addition.
This man had been in a car accident and had suffered a head injury. Sure enough, when he was shown pictures of his parents, the recogintion area lit up, but not the emotional area, which had been injured in the accident.
I think church teachings target emotional responses which are stored in that area of the brain. Whether hearing a massive choir or reacting fearfully at the thought of eternal fire, that emotional memory is being created.
I think knowing you are doing the churches will, actually makes people happy, regardless of the act itself or any conscious thought about it.
That’s what makes the indoctrination of children in a religion so wrong.
We don’t let them drive at the age of 8, but we drive the love of god and the fear of hell into them.
From my personal experience I’d say that family and friends are the primary motivations for being or remaining religious. Religions are designed and shaped to enforce shunning of apostates. Christianity makes the practice mandatory. Islam invokes the death penalty for apostates. India makes it illegal to convert others.
All this puts religion in the same category of oppressive practices as slavery and hereditary class.
People who escape the social pressure sometimes find comfort in personal spirituality — sometimes involving a deity and sometimes not. But organized religion usually pits family against nonconformists.
I went to a Quaker college. Quakers are among the least theistic of churchgoers. But they still apply social pressure to conform. They can be as mean as anyone.
Yes, the pressures are more subtle, but boy are they strong!
Although not to conform necessarily – sometimes to not conform.
Social pressure is not always evil. It is how we learn and reinforce honesty and generosity.
It shades into evil when it enforces thoughts, particularly thoughts about unresolvable issues like deities and afterlives.
Adding my two cents worth, Dawkins’s mistake lies in restricting the problem to religion. As Lizzie and others have pointed out, the danger lies on totalitarian or absolutist thinking of any sort, be it religious, political or ideological.
In my view, it derives from a craving for certainty, a feeling that we have a handle on the universe which will guarantee our personal well-being and survival – even if it is at the expense of others. In other words, like racism, its roots are in all of us.
The frightening thing about the Nazis is not just what they did, although that was bad enough, it is that, given the right – or wrong – circumstances, it could happen in any country at any time. The treatment of Jews in Europe, including England, from the Dark Ages on is evidence of that. All the Nazis did was try to turn it into an industrial operation.
In the case of 9/11, a small group of fanatics scored what was, in their terms, a spectacular tactical success by attacking a completely unprepared and defenseless civilian target, causing great damage and terrible loss of life.
Their even greater success lay in polarizing world opinion such that many in the West came to view all Islam as one vast religious movement bent on world domination. Whether they intended it or not, fear and uncertainty are the conditions in which extremists thrive and, again, the rise to power of the Nazis is an example of that danger.
The people who carried out the 9/11 attack died along with their victims. The men who planned it are mostly dead or in prison. Those responsible have paid and we must be satisfied with that. For the future, the best way to prevent such things happening again is to build bridges between communities not blow them up.
Looks like you deleted my challenge to debate. This only confirms my suspicion that atheists do not really stand by their convictions.
If you had taken the care to review recent posts, you would have seen that Elizabeth moved all posts that pertained to your challenge to a thread entitled “William Lane Craig.”
You seem to be going out of your way to antagonize people you consider to be your enemies. If you will be as gentle as Jesus, you may find that these people are not your enemies after all.
Look at the William Lane Craig post. It’s been moved there.
No, I did not delete your comments. I will not delete any comments unless they are illegal or contain malware. At worst I will move them to guano, and then only so as to try to keep the conversations here to the site principles. I also ask others not to delete any comments or posts (in fact I will try to make it impossible!)
What I did do, in this case, was move the thread to its own thread, here. Clearly I should have left a link here as well, and I apologise for not doing so earlier
However, in return, please mentally delete what you thought was confirmatory evidence of atheist pusillanimity, because it turns out to be merely evidence of my lack of thoughtfulness (also I’m a bit distracted today by Other Stuff, including a grant proposal, a baked custard, and a christening).
Yup, a baked custard will do it every time!
My father is 86 today, and when he was a small boy, his treat, the day before going back to prep school (boarding school) was a pudding consisting of baked custard, topped by strawberry jam, topped by whipped cream, topped by grated chocolate. My grandmother made it for us too, but we always called it “Daddy’s Going Away To School Pudding”.
He’s visiting us today, as it happens, so I thought I’d make it for him 🙂 Better than a cake with 86 candles.
Elizabeth said:
It’s easy to call a thing evil, when the only arbiter you’ve provided of “what evil means”, or how one should arrive at that judgement, is what “seems” to you to be evil. By that measure, you and your posts here are just as evil if such posts “seem” to be evil to Catholics or anyone else.
It seems to me that you offer only a litany of feelings here, and no argument capable of significant defense.
By the time you are an adult, nobody should be determining for you “what evil means”.
If your “church/religion/absolute moral code giver” says X is good, and you subjectively think X is evil, you had better be able to say no to them and suffer the consequences.
I can’t imagine a worse hell than never being allowed to think for yourself.
Fortunately, the rationality of the debate is not determined by the limitations of your imagination.
You might want to rethink the consequences your self-contradictory position that under subjective morality what you say is somehow more valid than what the church says – after all, under subjective morality, both would be nothing more than subjective moral positions.
Also, under subjective morality, if one thinks it is moral to torture infants for personal pleasure, then it is moral. Is that really the position you want to try and defend?
Not to speak for others, but the assumption that there are no supernatural deities doesn’t require a defence since there is no empirical evidence to the contrary. If you have a feeling for a deity, well, go ahead and invent one. I wouldn’t want to limit anyone’s freedom of thought in any way. “I do not wish to make a a window into men’s souls.” Just don’t expect to inflict any such beliefs on others.
Indeed!
Can you support your positive assertion that there is no empirical evidence to the contrary?
William J Murray,
Which church?
Who on Earth is advocating torturing babies for pleasure? I’m sure Herod was only acting from political reasons.
William J Murray,
Find the black swan.
Sorry, clicked the wrong reply button.
Find the black swan. Of course I can’t rule out the possibility that there is some kind of deity lurking somewhere in the universe. But how can I prove that no evidence of such deities exists? I can ask if anyone knows of any evidence of supernatural deities. Does William know of such evidence? We can discuss the credibility of any such evidence, if it exists. Until we have an example it is difficult to speculate what evidence for a deity would entail. And are we talking all postulated deities or just your favourite?
Agreed! The church’s position is simply their subjective position.
Any time our subjective positions differ, I have to, as an adult, go with my position. There is one brain in my skull that is reserved for my personal use in my personal life. No brain outside my skull, is going to override my opinion on any matter. I can be convinced to alter my viewpoint, but my subjective viewpoint will never be overridden by any person or organization simply because I am expected to submit.
My subjective morality would allow me to lock up the torturer. He would be allowed to sit in jail thinking it’s okay.
This is the position I’ll defend: Think what you like, but don’t act any way you like.
Alan Fox said:
I’m not the one that made a claim either way about the black swan. You are. All I did was challenge you to support your assertion. If you cannot support your claims, I suggest you withdraw or reword them.
If you cannot support your assertion that “there is no empirical evidence for god”, then you have no basis for defending your so-called “assumption of atheism”.
Claiming “default” status for one’s views is not a rational defense of those views. The only rational “default” position on any position one lacks knowledge of any compelling evidence about either way would be “I don’t know”, which would be agnosticism.
Alan Fox asks:
Any church.
Toronto said:
Yes, because being right by fiat in such things is an “adult” position. So, if I disagree with you that I should not kill you and take your property, you have no argument to offer me why I shouldn’t, other than “we just disagree about this?” Essentially, “might makes right” is your moral maxim?
William on UD
It’s emergent, William.
And likewise, if the torturer and his friends, had they the power to lock you up for your immoral inactions (not torturing infants), they are your moral equals (since it is all subjctive anyway)?
No, that’s a church’s viewpoint. If you don’t submit to their viewpoint, the congregation shuns you.
Arguing your point does no good since it is simply accepted that anything they say is right. No evidence from you is good enough, since that is simply a subjective viewpoint and therefore not worthy of consideration.
Dembski found that out when his science conflicted with the church’s global flood story. He could override his scientific views in favour of a bible story, or leave.
Any church? Latter Day Saints, Jehova’s witnesses, etc. What about Hinduism, Buddhism? I find The Dalai Lama says some interesting thing on existence but I don’t see empirical evidence for karma or chakras. Can I not assert the non-existence of chakras without proving they don’t exist. That’s a tough one, William!
The church burned and drowned witches and took their property.
They are your moral superiors. Was that okay?
So, under subjective morality, when one calls the church actions evil, it is under no more or less fundamental authority (one’s subjective views & feelings) than that which must also be extended to the church and believers (their subjective feelings and views). Therefore, condemning the church or believer’s views as “evil” is the equivalent of their calling your views or anything else “evil”.
Thus, the moral relativist has painted their own morality as black as any other via the brush they use themselves – subjctive views (whim).
By that token, the gassing Jews was as moral as anything Gandhi did; Jeffery Dahmer, Richard Dawkins, Mother Theresa, Torquemada, Carl Sagan, and all posters here have (or had) morally equivalent views – it’s just whatever we personally “feel” is moral at the time.
So, why should anyone care what anyone here calls “moral” or “immoral”, good or evil? One might as well listen to dogs barking or leaves rustling to gain insight into what is right or wrong, good or evil. Or really, just do whatever they feel like doing – why even bother trying to justify it? Why even bother trying to condemn what others believe is good or evil? Why even bother using the words?
People just do what they do, like rocks, leaves, and flowing water … right?
As a point of information, I am not defending an assumption of atheism. I am stating my personal view that no currently postulated gods including Allah, Yahweh, the Christiian set of gods actually exist; they are human constructs. You want me to provide evidence that no evidence -that any of these deities exist- exists? That, frankly, is absurd.
William, do you just want to continue asking rhetorical questions or would you like to consider the possibility that one can reason to a set of standards and rules for communal living that does not require a deity and yet where torturing babies is wrong and actively opposed and dealt with by heavy sanctions?
It strikes me that the bible has at least two standards for good and evil.
One is completely secular, and involves things like health, happiness, prosperity, sickness, pain and such. Not many sane people disagree with basing good and evil on these.
The other standard involves obedience to god, and on this the illustrative examples appear to be completely backwards and wrong-headed. Wherever god’s will in invoked you can be pretty sure that a sensible child would judge the actions to be wrong.
Wrong!
People have to think, and that includes you and any other member of a congregation.
While a child is expected to submit, an adult is expected to think for themselves. Nothing gets you off that hook, not even your church or a prophet claiming to speak for a god.
If your church and you have a conflict, you had better follow your own gut. Churches are not infallible and shouldn’t be allowed to get away with inappropriate behaviour for any reason.
You are the one that has to decide that. If you believe that your God gave you a mind and free will, you can be sure that he expects you to use it regardless of what a lower-ranking entity like a church may say.
Alan Fox,
I’d love to see you “reason” a set of standards and rules for morality based on the premise that what morality describes (what is good) is entirely subjective.
You’d have to ask someone else about the Bible. I’ve never read it, so it certainly isn’t a part of any argument I make.
It has been done, though maybe not to your satisfaction. Some guy called Thomas Paine wrote “The Age of Reason”.
I agree that your assertion that there is no evidence for god is absurd, since you agree that the idea that you can provide evidence to support your assertion is absurd.
But you said any church!
Claiming “it has been done” is not doing it. Present your case if you are up to it.
It doesn’t matter which church I was referring to, because under subjectivism what any church said would be essentially the same thing – just one more subjective claim about what is good and evil.
Just to clarify, I don’t think there are any deities of the supernatural sort. Man made gods, not vice versa. I can’t refute any evidence for the existence of real imaginary deities because I know of no such evidence and I challenge anyone to come up with any evidence. When there is evidence of deities existing that someone wants to offer, then we can look at it and test its worth.
If you think that is absurd, fair enough, but I am content with my view. Still curious as to what faith you follow. Is it rude to ask?
Well the book exists. You can confirm this in a number of ways. You can check its content via a library I would think.
Alan Fox,
Perhaps you should think about limiting your assertions and challenges to those you are actually planning on making a case for here.
Actually, it’s free as an on line read or download.
I’m a rational theist. The “faith” I follow is reason.
William,
Do you want to take part in some form of on-line debate on whether an objective morality exists or that morality, like all religions, is a human construct?
That’s fine. Especially if there’s no baby torturing involved. 🙂
Welcome to TSZ, William! Glad you dropped by 🙂
Toronto,
They weren’t my moral superiors. I think you are assuming things about me that you shouldn’t be.