The Sentinel

Originally posted by

Tom McFarlane

Unfortunately, just like Sam Harris's "The End of Faith", this simplistic and divisive rhetoric tragically serves to polarize attitudes, reinforce superficial stereotypes, and promote fear of the other. Indeed, this piece illustrates well the very mindset that is the source of the problem. Much more helpful would be to foster a deeper and more compassionate understanding of the other, rather than arrogantly and self-righteously demonizing them as our enemy. With the diversity of cultures and worldviews in our world today, our only hope at getting along with each other rests not with promoting fear and intolerance of the other, but with fostering understanding and open-mindedness. Otherwise, we are destined to become that which we hate.

It is not a question of 'becoming that which we hate.'
These people loath and depise freedom, free speech and democracy.
They laugh at yout attempts to show compassion and understanding and see them as a pathetic weakness.
Do you not see? They would kill you if they could! Have you not read the koran? If you will not fight them and you will not convert to islam... they will kill you! Your open mindedness and understanding will not save you...these people are fascists...wake up!

Hey Dude:

I think you just set the world record for the most number of political/academic "buzzwords" in a single post. In essence, you just blew my "worldview."

Originally posted by

Tom McFarlane

Unfortunately, just like Sam Harris's "The End of Faith", this simplistic and divisive rhetoric tragically serves to polarize attitudes, reinforce superficial stereotypes, and promote fear of the other. Indeed, this piece illustrates well the very mindset that is the source of the problem. Much more helpful would be to foster a deeper and more compassionate understanding of the other, rather than arrogantly and self-righteously demonizing them as our enemy. With the diversity of cultures and worldviews in our world today, our only hope at getting along with each other rests not with promoting fear and intolerance of the other, but with fostering understanding and open-mindedness. Otherwise, we are destined to become that which we hate.

Originally posted by

Derek Bronish

Certainly there are religious people who do good things. I concede this point, but find it largely irrelevant. It may be the case that atheists are at least as good as believers, if not more so. Studies of religious affiliation among the prison population have suggested as much, although I would hesitate to call that a knock-down argument.

I'd say that the onus of proof is not on me, though. In your response you encouraged me to more honestly engage in skepticism, so let me apply that precept and tell you that I'm extremely skeptical of your assertion that without religion, there would be a "vacuum of goodness."

Starting with the exact same counterfactual premise as you, I'm much more inclined to assert things like:

"Without religion, the inquisition would never have happened"

"Without religion, there would be far fewer suicide bombings" (Nationalism, another detrimental form of faith which just happens to be non-religious, could still endorse martyrdom)

"Without religion, stem cell research could proceed, unhindered by overburdening regulation, and potentially cure innumerable diseases"

I could continue on in this fashion for quite some time. Disagree with my conclusion if you choose, but it seems that intellectual honesty compels you to at least see my side of things here, and to see that "religion inspires goodness" isn't nearly a good enough counter-argument.

Let me add as a side-note that I'm not so concerned with the everyday, folksy moral teachings of religion as I am with the unquestionable metaphysical ones. This is because an unworkable metaphysics, based on faith, can easily *override* any moral doctrine that a religion may preach. No amount of quotes, plucked from religious authorities or the Bible or the Koran or anywhere else, which preach tolerance, love, etc, can outweigh the underlying premise of all supernatural dogmas: that the reality of this life is *not* the absolute. Real faith in the afterlife is all it takes to inspire people like James Kopp and Mohamed Atta to throw "thou shalt not kill" out the window. It is your responsibility as a defender of faith to account for this horrific fact.

"It is your responsibility as a defender of faith to account for this horrific fact."

How does one account for evil in the world? You seem to lay it at the feet of metaphysical beliefs, - all of them. I would lay it at the feet of the human condition. All persons who are intent on gaining control and power over others will use what ever is available to attain it: religion, government, science, philosophy. That does not mean that those things are the source of evil.

Given the way all people throughout history have treated each other as objects to gain our selfish objectives, it is a wonder that we can talk about the goodness in people at all. It is a wonder that there is a part in all of us that allows us to related to each other as persons.

I grant that for some, that goodness is almost unrecognizable. And we find ourselves having to defend our families, communities, nation against them. Yet all of us have a choice: to choose to do evil or good. There are lots of models for us to follow, some religious, some secular. For mine, I attempt to model my actions around the selfless actions of Jesus.

Again, I would encourage you to take a look at this person, who, way more than just a "folksy moralist", seems to have been as genuine a person as I can imagine.

It seems like quite a large equivocation to put science on the same plane as religion, as simply a method for maladjusted people to grasp for power. Science is falsifiable, progressive, and most importantly, factive. These properties tend to insulate it from cynical manipulation for political gains. Religion, on the other hand, has none of these characteristics, and not coincidentally, has been a force for totalitarianism and injustice for centuries. Again, I'll grant that religious faith can inspire good also, but I deem this vastly less relevant, for the reasons already discussed. Religion's supernatural metaphysics license its practicioners to throw more "down-to-earth" moral principles out the window and justify mass murder.

Is it really a wonder that we can talk about goodness in people at all? I don't think so, precisely because I think morality is a psychological mechanism selected for by evolution and reinforced by societal interaction, *not* an arbitrary prescription of some faith or another. The fact that you can choose what Biblical doctrines to endorse (the golden rule) and which to reject (such as its endorsement of slavery, Abraham's willingness to murder his son, etc), suggests that you can judge right and wrong *independent* of your religious affiliation. We don't need religion to be moral, and those that choose religion as a model for morality are really bringing their own innate sense of right and wrong to the table when interpreting that model. And if that's the case, why not forget the model altogether? It certainly worked for me, and countless other non-religious yet perfectly moral people around the world.

I'm not saying that morality is occurent and fully developed in every individual without fail, but supernaturalism certainly doesn't help matters. Are you really being "good," when your actions are inspired by fear of a mythical tortuous eternity (or by a desire to please a non-existant imaginary friend)? Is a moral code which rightly denounces murder, while simultaneously inveighing against victimless mental states such as sexual lust or homosexuality *really* worth preserving?

Let's be honest here: everything *good* thing that Jesus, or Yahweh, or Mohammed, or any other religious authority seeks to teach about morality can be taught *without* packaging in an inimical metaphysics. Supernaturalism is only necessary to teach the unfounded moral precepts, those which motivate prohibition, vice laws, restrictions on reproductive freedom, etc. Abandoning religous faith seems to be the first big, necessary step towards a truly free society. As I said in the article, I'm not arguing for a legal restriction on faith, simply a societal attitude which frees us from the shackles of non-argumentative tolerance. Let us no longer grant unfounded beliefs a sounding board. They have not earned it, and have done ill with it throughout history.

Originally posted by

Derek Bronish

Certainly there are religious people who do good things. I concede this point, but find it largely irrelevant. It may be the case that atheists are at least as good as believers, if not more so. Studies of religious affiliation among the prison population have suggested as much, although I would hesitate to call that a knock-down argument.

I'd say that the onus of proof is not on me, though. In your response you encouraged me to more honestly engage in skepticism, so let me apply that precept and tell you that I'm extremely skeptical of your assertion that without religion, there would be a "vacuum of goodness."

Starting with the exact same counterfactual premise as you, I'm much more inclined to assert things like:

"Without religion, the inquisition would never have happened"

"Without religion, there would be far fewer suicide bombings" (Nationalism, another detrimental form of faith which just happens to be non-religious, could still endorse martyrdom)

"Without religion, stem cell research could proceed, unhindered by overburdening regulation, and potentially cure innumerable diseases"

I could continue on in this fashion for quite some time. Disagree with my conclusion if you choose, but it seems that intellectual honesty compels you to at least see my side of things here, and to see that "religion inspires goodness" isn't nearly a good enough counter-argument.

Let me add as a side-note that I'm not so concerned with the everyday, folksy moral teachings of religion as I am with the unquestionable metaphysical ones. This is because an unworkable metaphysics, based on faith, can easily *override* any moral doctrine that a religion may preach. No amount of quotes, plucked from religious authorities or the Bible or the Koran or anywhere else, which preach tolerance, love, etc, can outweigh the underlying premise of all supernatural dogmas: that the reality of this life is *not* the absolute. Real faith in the afterlife is all it takes to inspire people like James Kopp and Mohamed Atta to throw "thou shalt not kill" out the window. It is your responsibility as a defender of faith to account for this horrific fact.

You speak in very absolute terms: all religion should be disposed of. It is not religion that has been a force for totalitarianism and injustice for centuries. It is people. The vehicle for that injustice takes many forms. Religion is one of them, but it certainly is not the only or main one. You speak in broad generalities. Yet in my experience, at least in the Christain faith of which I am a part, those down to earth morals are vigously supported by faith in God. What in your personal experience would lead you to believe that faith in God leads to license to murder?

Originally posted by

Bill Meek

There is both good and bad in the world. I and millions of like minded people support the wonderful advances in medical science. I and millions of like mind people also support world, national, community agencies, many of them churches, which endeaver to give shelter to the homeless, safety to battered women, aide to natural disaster victims, liberation to oppressed in the Americas and elsewhere. I and millions of other likeminded secular and religious also give of time, energy, talents and money in supporting institutions of higher learning, similar to yours. (As a side note, I would remind the reader that hundreds of our educational and medical facilities were created and are supported by religious institutions.)

Those who are of good will should join forces to bring help and hope to those who do not have it, who have been denied it by those who would cause evil, both religious and secular. Labeling those who seek to give that help as "toxic" or "enemy # one" works against, nor for, them.

Again, I would encourage us to model our actions around those who have done great good: Jesus, Ghandi, Mother Theresa, M.L. King, J.F. Kennedy, Mandella, William Wilberforce (see the movie Amazing Grace)... All of them to one degree or another lived their lives by the way of the cross: selfless giving. For the Christian, Jesus exemplified that life completely.

However one chooses to live on the side of good, where ever you find that strength - in Christ, in others, or in your own heart - I would hope that those who are like minded, religious and secular, would join in the unity of that good, to help all of us, but especially those without, experience the goodness of creation.

Please understand, I'm not calling for an end to charity or good will. I'm saying that we can and should justify all all of these noble actions without religious faith. The fact that religious faith happens to be what inspired some people to be good is simply a fact of history that could have been otherwise. Cherry-picked historical examples are not a good enough reason to continue to tolerate a doctrine which can also justify murder, slavery and bigotry. Again, the reason why you think that Ghandi (who by the way was a known racist) and Mother Theresa (who by the way didn't contribute to scientific attempts to cure the sick, but rather just allowed them to suffer en masse) were "good" is because you have a standard of right and wrong which stands outside of your faith. Everybody does. We don't need faith, and today faith in the minds of others stands as a threat to our continued existence. These are facts that speak for themselves.

Originally posted by

Bill Meek

It would be like saying some secular philosophies justify murder, therefore no one should be a secularist.

This is precisely my point. Secular philosophies, since they do not carry with them a supernatural metaphysics, do not foster violence in the minds of any neurologically normal adherents. If it were the case that some secular philosophy or another could justify the murder of innocents, I would reject it just as vehemently as I now reject religiosity. (We could of course devolve in to a debate over Nazism or some such thing here, but you can probably predict that I would argue that Nazism was a sort of quasi-faith, which was evil precisely to the extent that it resembled a religion.)

I think the communication breakdown between us is now clearly evident and insurmountable. I had exactly such discussions as this in mind when I wrote my article's introductory paragraph. The suggestion that I visit a soup kitchen strikes me as either extraneous or evasive. As I've said already, no amount of good that can be attributed to religion is enough to outweigh the evil which faith in the supernatural potentiates.

I think I'll just content myself by summarizing my case:

1) Religion necessitates faith in the supernatural. Deeply held faith in the supernatural can be manipulated to justify nearly anything, including the horrors of the Inquisition, and the cold blooded murder of 9/11.

2) There is no positive consequence which only religion can engender. Any good thing that religion can do, reason (or humanity, or common decency, etc.) can do better, without a doctrine of supernaturalism packaged in.

3) In light of (1) and (2), religion should be viewed irredeemably as a threat.

We're just looking at the world through differently-colored spectacles. Your faith and your admirable empathy renders you acutely sensitive to the charity and good-will which religion fosters. My non-belief, love of my own life, and concern for humanity's continued existence renders me acutely sensitive to the very real and immediate threat that faith (combined our modern technological and political situation) poses. Chances are, the notion of either of us winning the other over is hopeless at the outset. At the very least, it's been an interesting rhetorical exercise, and I'd be happy to let you have the last word if you feel like ending things here.