The Atheist Thread, Cont'd.

[Shuggy]

Julia Sweeney, comedienne, has released a CD of her famous "Letting Go of God" talks, and this webpage offers 3 samples from it:

On "Intelligent Design"  http://www.juliasweeney.com/letting_go_mini/audio4.html

That goes rather well with this, which I confess I may have posted on another thread.

[Ellemeno]

Julia Sweeney, comedienne, has released a CD of her famous "Letting Go of God" talks, and this webpage offers 3 samples from it:

On "Intelligent Design"  http://www.juliasweeney.com/letting_go_mini/audio4.html
On Deepak Chopra http://www.juliasweeney.com/letting_go_mini/audio3.html
On Santa Claus http://www.juliasweeney.com/letting_go_mini/audio2.html

You may have encountered Sweeney on "This American Life" who featured her in one of their most-popular episodes, "Godlessness in America."

I had the opportunity to see Julia perform this in LA last year (and then get to tell her how much all her monologues mean to me, yay!).  I highly recommend it.  I just ordered the CD, and I am certain it will be my husband's favorite Christmas present this year. 

LOL - Until I wrote that, I actually didn't realize how ironic a present it is to celebrate a religious holiday.

But really, Julia is brilliant, and I want to be her when I grow up.

[TexRob]

For some reason, I can no longer access the thread "Atheists: Come Out, Come Out, Wherever You Are."  My browser freezes if I try to post in it.

So I'm starting a new one, which I'm treating as a continuation of the first, beginning with a marvelous (and thought-provoking) Op-Ed piece from Sam Harris.

Enjoy.

I've thought about what the worse taboo is -- to be gay or to be atheist.  In the United States, I've concluded that at this point in our cultural development, being atheist is far worse.

As the Sam Harris article mentions, a big part of the problem centers on the issue of morality.  Many believers equate atheism with immorality, and many atheists seem to add fuel to that by implying that indeed, morality is not possible.

As a philosophical issue, the problem is one of conceptual clarity.  People, both believers and atheists, tend to jump into the discussion of atheism without first trying to define what they mean when they use an abstract term such as "morality."

As a practical problem, it's sometimes helpful when dealing with believers to remind them that it's possible to be atheist and still have a set of moral values.  I find that doing so often decreases the size of the soapbox people are willing to stand on in order to attack the conclusions of others.
 

[Shuggy]

Many believers equate atheism with immorality, and many atheists seem to add fuel to that by implying that indeed, morality is not possible.

There's a guy I'm constantly locking horns with here who keeps saying "But if there were no god, we'd have no way of saying that [eg Hitler] was evil." I have no problem saying that Hitler was evil without invoking any god, and in fact his whole argument implies that Hitler was evil without a god having to say so, or why would he use that example? (It looks a bit silly saying "If there were no god, we'd have no way of knowing that eating shellfish was an abomination.")

The fact is that religiousi use humanist criteria to decide which of their scriptures to take any notice of (eg Thou Shalt Not Kill vs Thou Shalt Not Suffer a Witch to Live) - except where the scriptures are in line with their prejudices (eg homophobia).

If not, they have the problem of "Is this evil because God says it is, or does God say it is because it really is?" In the first case, God is purely arbitrary/whimsical, so why should we take any notice? In the second, there is a higher law that God is following: why don't we go to that and eliminate the middlegod?

[TexRob]

There's a guy I'm constantly locking horns with here who keeps saying "But if there were no god, we'd have no way of saying that [eg Hitler] was evil." I have no problem saying that Hitler was evil without invoking any god, and in fact his whole argument implies that Hitler was evil without a god having to say so, or why would he use that example? (It looks a bit silly saying "If there were no god, we'd have no way of knowing that eating shellfish was an abomination.")

The fact is that religiousi use humanist criteria to decide which of their scriptures to take any notice of (eg Thou Shalt Not Kill vs Thou Shalt Not Suffer a Witch to Live) - except where the scriptures are in line with their prejudices (eg homophobia).

If not, they have the problem of "Is this evil because God says it is, or does God say it is because it really is?" In the first case, God is purely arbitrary/whimsical, so why should we take any notice? In the second, there is a higher law that God is following: why don't we go to that and eliminate the middlegod?

Sometimes it helps just to ask people like this what their starting point is, then make them stick to it.  Your friend seems to be engaging the question of good vs. evil in the middle, not by laying out the premises or axioms he's starting from.  You're within bounds to ask him what he's starting from in his reasoning.  Sometimes, this has a sobering effect on such people.

Socrates's question about whether it's good because God commands it or whether God commands it because it's good is thought-provoking for people for whom religion is the basis of all morality.   But believers often take so much for granted that everyone has a religion that they cannot conceive any other starting point than God, however His commands are justified. 

Humanism, in the sense that human needs are the starting point for moral discourse, is a relatively new development, but elements of it can be found even in ancient religious writing, as you pointed out.  As a result, it seems that believers will in one instance invoke God as the implicit basis of a moral conclusion (e.g., don't eat shellfish, faggot) and at other times implicitly invoke humanism.  They may not realize they're doing that.

Logically, they cannot switch their premises as they wish.  The commandment Thou Shalt Not Kill contradicts other examples in which God commanded exactly that.  So using the commandment to say that Hitler was evil would be a contradiction if what they mean is "evil in the eye of God."   We don't know what God's intent was, nor whether or not Hitler was fulfilling the will of God.  So he cannot be condemned from a rigourously religious point of view unless the person condemning Hitler also claimed to know the mind of God.   That, to me, would be the utmost arrogance, although the state of mind of such a person would have to be pretty interesting, to say the least.

To resolve the contradiction, they would have to concede that the commandment had a humanistic basis to it.  What they cannot do is switch back and forth between the two moral axioms as they wish.  That would be intellectual dishonesty. They have to argue from one starting point or the other. 

[Shuggy]

Thank you, that is very clarifying. I'm not in a position to try to extact any sense from the guy (no friend of mine, arrogant little man) these days, we're inclined to get one letter each in the paper.

[Lynne]

As a practical problem, it's sometimes helpful when dealing with believers to remind them that it's possible to be atheist and still have a set of moral values.  I find that doing so often decreases the size of the soapbox people are willing to stand on in order to attack the conclusions of others.

This is an excellent point, Robert, and one I try to make frequently with all the evangelicals in my own life.  It's frustrating that 'they' seem unable to accept that it's possiible to have a value system and personal ethics wiithout belief in a higher power.  I'm over-simplifying, but to me an intrinsic system of morality has a great deal more integrity than one based on the Ten Commandments or other religious doctrine.  The reason I think this is that the religious folks have what I consider a 'built-in' ulterior motive, i.e. heaven, afterlife, etc.  It should be sufficient to conduct yourself ethically and morally because it is the right way for human beings to treat each other.

I've said before that I waffle between atheism and agnosticism personally - it's like my scientific brain is in conflict with my idealistic, hopeful heart.

[delalluvia]

I'm a theist, not an atheist or agnostic, but am very atheist/agnostic friendly since I understand the POV exactly.

Strange thing happened today.  I was in the hospital, getting an upper GI endoscopy done for a problem I've been having.  While being admitted, during the questioning sequence - where you're told that anything they may do to you might kill you, but not to hold that against them - I was asked a very strange question.

"Do you have a religious preference?"

Being used to the workplace, I was startled to even be asked such a personal question.  I gave the older woman nurse/practitioner a strange look and replied honestly, "Pagan."

It was her turn to be startled and she looked at me and said "Really?"

I nodded and she said, "I don't think I've ever had anyone answer like that before."

She was being unintentionally rude, but I didn't take offense.

So then I asked why the hospital wanted to know such a thing.

The answer was, just in case something happened to me, the hospital might be able to notify or provide the appropriate clergy.

I shrugged.

Later, she got to the 'What do you do for a living?'

When I responded, she seemed relived, "Oh, that's why.  Having a job like that might not make you believe in the Creation."

 

I didn't say I was an atheist/agnostic.  I believe in a 'creation' just not a judeo/christian/islamo version.

Makes me wonder if she misunderstood what a pagan is, or if she just considered anyone who wasn't of her religious persuasion, a disbeliever, period.

[oilgun]

Many believers equate atheism with immorality, and many atheists seem to add fuel to that by implying that indeed, morality is not possible.
 

Richard Dawkins says that morality most likely pre-dated religion, that our moral sense has a Darwinian origin.  I've always thought that but it's nice when an expert explains how it all came about.

It's nice to see some other godless heathens, cheers!

[Shuggy]

I've been spending a lot of time at the Richard Dawkins website http://richarddawkins.net - and so have a lot of other people, apparently, it's getting very slow downloading. Lots of good stuff. A few nutters. Interestingly RD (as those of us call him who don't call him The Prof) engaged with Ted Haggard before he was exposed. TH was slimy about evoution and religion then, now he's too busy being slimy about homosexuality.

My gripe with RD is that he doesn't deal with the more sophisticated view of God expounded by the likes of Paul Tillich, only with the Creator/Designer (who he disposes of) and the Einsteinian God of Nature (who/which he leaves well alone). The Ground of all Being, for whom existence or non-existence is not meaningful, he doesn't consider. (It's hard to see how you can worship such a god, though.)