Religion in the 2012 election

[Thats my opinion]

(The following is an abstract of a speech I recently gave to the local Democratic Party)
I have been asked to talk about the relationship between religion and electoral politics. Since the recent focus has been on the political power of conservative Christianity, I want to limit my inquiry to that concern.

This is not a new issue. In 1692 what government there was in Massachusetts was under the control of a judicial-religious oligarchy. Judges Hawthorne and Corwin worked hand and hand with The Rev. Cotton Mather in prosecuting women and men as witches. Puritans honored God, and ran the State. On June tenth 1692, Bridget Bishop was hanged, the first of twenty government authorized executions for witchcraft.

Even after the adoption of the Constitution and subsequent court cases defining the separation of church and state, this alliance continued. In the ante-bellum south the conservative wing of the Baptists, Methodists and Presbyterian churches split off, basically over the question of slavery. Religion in the slave states almost uniformly referred to the Bible as the God ordained justification for slavery. I have gone through sermons preached in the old south, and in my book published in 2001, The Resurrected Church, I compiled a list of texts from both the Old and New Testaments used in the support of slavery.

Herein also lies the religious justification for segregation. One remembers that the ku klux klan t adopted the cross as their primary symbol.

Now consider the issues recently supported by evangelicals.
Unfettered capitalism and free enterprise
American exceptionalism
Passionate support of both the military and our recent wars.
Unwavering support of Israel
Support of capital punishment
Restrictive immigration policies
Low tax rates, particularly for the most wealthy
…Just to name a few

And opposition to
Organized labor
Food stamps and other parts of the social safety net
Obama care and other forms of so-called “Socialized medicine”
Gun control
Government authorized foreign aid.

And then there are the sexual and gender issues which lie at the religious heart of evangelicals..
Abortion
Gay rights, including marriage, military service for gays etc.
Limited availability of birth control for all but married women—and in some cases not even for them.

Note that these are the same issues which are the ideological substance of the current Republican Party! But remember the Republican Party was founded when Henry Clay and Abraham Lincoln separated themselves from the old Whig Party over the issue of slavery in the states soon to be carved from the Louisiana Purchase. For many years thereafter Lincoln and his followers were called Black Republicans. It was the southern Democrats who were the champions of slavery, and then segregation. It was not until Nixon’s “southern strategy” that the Democrats lost their title as defenders of the white race. It took an entire generation to replace Democratic Senators like Bilbo with Republicans like Helms. And these same southern states were then and are now dominated by evangelical Christians. Their position hasn’t changed. The only change has been in their party of choice.

While evangelicals played a heavy-handed part in the devastating Republican primaries, basically in support of Rick Santorum, these sexual issues all but disappeared in the general campaign. Mitt Romney’s lurch to the center during the last weeks, all but seemed to abandon his far right religious constituency. My guess is he rightly assumed that their support was already secure, and that the center provided his only fertile ground. But why didn’t the Christian right scream in pain at its abandonment? What happened to its religious fervor?

It is even more complicated than that. Until recently, one of the orthodox Republican’s major fears was that these right-wing religionists would take over the GOP. Barry Goldwater once remarked,

Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the party, and they’re sure trying to do so, it’s going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can’t and won’t compromise. I know. I’ve tried to deal with them.

So what happened? One theory is that the evangelical’s power had already passed its “use-by” date.” They were already a diminishing contingent in American culture. Billy Graham and Pat Robertson were passé. Jerry Falwell had gone to his reward. The Moral Majority and its successors were no more. While all that may be true, in the red states, as well as in much of the rest of the county, very conservative Christians still constituted the base of the party.

Nevertheless they never left Romney. But one wonders why this strange amalgamation of facts created an ear shattering silence. I believe there is a reason for the silence. I find the clue in the candidacy of this committed Mormon. If most evangelical Christians were sure of anything, it was that Mormonism was a heresy—probably a non-Christian cult. Five years ago Amy Sullivan, editor of the of the Washington Monthly, wrote,

Moderate Republicans aren't the ones who could derail a Romney [2008 ] candidacy. His obstacle is the evangelical base--a voting bloc that now makes up 30 percent of the Republican electorate. It is hard to overestimate the importance of evangelicalism in the modern Republican Party, and it is nearly impossible to overemphasize the problem evangelicals have with Mormonism. Evangelicals don't have the same vague anti-LDS prejudice that some other Americans do. For them it's a doctrinal thing, based on very specific theological disputes. Romney's journalistic boosters either don't understand these doctrinal issues or try to sidestep them. But ignoring them won't make them go away. To evangelicals, Mormonism isn't just another religion. It’s a cult.
But there is no indication that Mitt was abandoned by the evangelicals for doctrinal reasons. They hung with him in spite of his “cultic” identity. You can draw your own conclusion from this phenomenon, but here is mine. For most evangelicals, religion may only be a screen behind which they hide. Their real commitment is to a radically conservative social philosophy. Religion may serve that purpose, but when push comes to shove, right-wing politics trumps religious fervor. The culture is far more important than any faith commitments. Their so-called religious preoccupation is a fraud!

One sees behind this pious screen a substantial dose of racism, classism, xenophobia, nationalism, a trust in guns and their accompanying violence—and a series of other convictions buried in right-wing causes. None of these things naturally flow from the Christian affirmation. These hard right sociological concerns, not Christian faith, may be at the core of the identity of many Christian fundamentalists. So what they knew to be a cultic candidate was simply put aside because he and his Party represented far more important commitments. What was the relationship between religion and politics on the last election? It really didn’t matter.

[skepticscott]

1. Long winded and pompous NTS argument

Nothing more.

"None of these things naturally flow from the Christian affirmation"

Uh, no Charles. None of these things naturally flow from the Christian affirmation for you. But you don't speak, think or act for all Christians, now do you?

We know you're desperate to show that every bit of good ever done by any person who happens to be religious can be credited to religion, while at the same time denying that the evil done by religious people is anything but an anomaly, perpetrated by "Christianists", but not by True Christians (as conveniently defined by you), and not to be held against religion. But it's as much horseshit now as it was the first time you tried to peddle it.

[trotsky]

2. "None of these things naturally flow from the Christian affirmation"

As you choose to see it.

Historically, all of those things have quite naturally flowed from it. For instance, Christianity has been plagued by anti-Semitism its entire existence. It has been far more commonly a tool of oppression and domination, lauded by Christians like yourself when it finally succeeds in overcoming these historical tendencies to "return" to "authentic" faith.

I don't think it is wise to ignore or deny the true history of your religion.

[Thats my opinion]

3. There is a difference between

those things which flow authentically from an ideology, and those things which many of those who claim that ideology do in its name. Agnosticism has a long and distinguished intellectual history, as does atheism. They both continue to advance rational conversation. But no one suggests that all those who seem to espouse either position represent the best about either position. I doubt if anyone here has tried to equate Ayn Rand and her followers with what is best about atheism. Hundreds of millions followed Stalin, but if we are looking for what best flows from a system of non-belief, we would not hold him up as am image of the authentic.

We must ask of those who have a solid knowledge of Christian ethics whether any of the things I listed as l coming from fundamentalists have any relationship to the well-attested nature of the Christian gospel. On the contrary, they flow, as I pointed out, from a right-wing political orientation. The point of the post was that these things bear no relationship to Christian ethics, but come from those captive to racism, nationalism etc.. As you pointed out,there is a dark inhuman side which is woven into Western history in the name of Christianity. I must accept that as part of my tradition. I have spent my life offering another perspective, which also is woven into western history.

Over history people who claim to be Christians have done horrible things. Are these terrible activities derived from Christian ethics or from some other source? It is part of the task of anyone claiming a position to discriminate between what is the natural outflow of that position, and what comes from a cultural system far removed from that position.

There is a library of solid scholarship describing the nature of Christian ethics. Nothing in all the literature holds that the things listed in the posting have anything to do with Christian authenticity.

Trot—I do not often reply to you—or even read your stuff, but your last post seemed to raise a legitimate point, and was not just an attempt to savage what I had posted. I leave savaging to savages. I do not ask you to agree with me, or to change your position, only to hear honestly what I have said. I may be an incurable optimistic, but I live in hope that even those who disagree with me can find a rational platform for a sensible discussion, instead of thinking that point are really made or advanced by a diatribe.

[trotsky]

4. But you're missing the point.

You're making your own judgment call on what is "authentically" flowing and who has a "solid knowledge of Christian ethics."

HOWEVER, THESE ARE THE VERY THINGS THAT ARE DISPUTED. You are starting off by assuming that your version of Christianity is the only "authentic" one, that people like you are the only ones who have that solid knowledge. Fred Phelps is just as sure of himself that HIS faith is authentic, and that HE understands what Christian ethics are all about.

And this isn't even going into modern values we cherish like democracy, secularism, etc. that did not come from your faith at all.

The bottom line is, PEOPLE do bad things. They also do good things. Religion can motivate them to do bad things. Religion can motivate them to do good things. Given the woefully contradictory texts that make up the Christian bible, who is really to judge what "authentic" Christian faith, ethics, or behavior is?

What you're doing is packaging up everything you don't like about your religion, its history, and its adherents today, and blaming it on every other factor OTHER than the religion itself.

Then, in a double whammy, you set aside every bit of good its adherents have managed to accomplish, wrap it up with a pretty bow, and say that THIS is "authentic" Christianity.

I believe what you are doing is judging Christian acts by another, non-Christian set of principles. A set of principles that you have learned through life experiences outside the faith tradition, your own personal ideas of what is right and what is wrong. Those Christian acts and concepts that match up with those values are then deemed by you as "authentic" faith.

I think we are far better served as a society by looking at that other standard by which you are (subconsciously, evidently) judging your very own religion. That "rational platform for a sensible discussion" needs to leave religion out of it, because if not, it's just an argument between you and Fred Phelps over who's the "True Christian." That debate has been raging since religion itself started, and I see absolutely no indication it will ever end.

On edit: I do not think anything is gained by calling people "savages" either, no matter what they're trying to say.

[Thats my opinion]

5. Thanks for your reply

I am not just making just my own judgment.
I am relying on the judgment of the orthodox tradition of church from its inception and earlier. I might begin with Paul and the summation of his posting on ethics in Corinthians 13, in which he describes agape—love as the overarching ethical norm. When Paul talks about ethics, that is his position. When he talks about some of the traditions in his society he is describing something very different. But his ethical imperative is unambiguous. His writings preceded the writing of the gospels. But the basis of all Christian ethics is found in a collection of Jesus’ sayings, called, the sermon on the mount, Matthew 5-6 -7 This is repeated with variations in Luke’s, sermon on the plain. Luke 5.

As much as you might find touching a Bible difficult, if you really want to know the basis of Christian ethics, read these texts and then come back to me. Time, space and purpose do not permit, but I could run this posture back through history and cite all the main-line theologians and Christian ethicists whose perspective grows from these texts. To put Fred Phelps and Augustine, for instance, as having equal weight, is a mighty stretch.

Yes I do hold that the thread of ethics I have adopted is at the heart of Christian thought, and not anti-Semitism, sexual stuff from the Holiness code or Fred Phelps. Or if you really want to dig into more recent Christian ethics try reading Bonheoffer’s ethics, or Joseph Hough’s, or Oscar Romero’s or a hundred others I could name.

Correct. People do both good and bad things, and religion can be a motivator either way. I would hold that most civilization has most often relied on a religious impulse as the basis of ethical behavior. It would be very helpful to me and cure an ignorant blank in my information if you could tick off half a dozen ethically based societies with no religious perspective at their core. This is an honest request for information.

There are obviously two strands running through religious history. I disavow the negative while realizing it is part of my tradition, and affirm the positive. Discrimination is part of any an intelligent process. I have always been at a loss as to why a few of you just can’t seem to affirm the positive about religion instead of dumping on all if it. What I represent is the orthodox ethical thread.

I accept the judgment of your last sentence. I wonder if you have the same concern both for what you often write and that of a couple of your colleagues? I would hope so. If that is true, perhaps we can continue this more rational conversation.

[trotsky]

6. The orthodox tradition of your church from its inception...

(particularly if you're using Paul as a guide) is highly debatable.

I resent your comment about how I might feel reading the bible. I grew up as a Christian, and I read the bible cover to cover multiple times. Your arrogant attitude that I should do this "and then come back to" you is not appreciated. I was even confirmed in the Lutheran Church (ELCA) and did quite a bit of studying on my own.

The ironic thing here is that while Phelps and Augustine do not hold equivalent significance in your religion's tradition, they DO have equal weight. This is the conundrum that lies at the heart of any revealed religion: at any time, your god could speak to someone and give them new information, changing the religion. You have no way of knowing whether your god spoke to Phelps. You really don't. When you understand that very important point, you may have a better idea where we doubters are coming from.

Again you don't seem to understand how you are putting your own viewpoint first, and declaring THAT to be "the heart of Christian thought." You aren't giving any justification for that whatsoever, just declaring it.

Now on to the juicy stuff:
I would hold that most civilization has most often relied on a religious impulse as the basis of ethical behavior. It would be very helpful to me and cure an ignorant blank in my information if you could tick off half a dozen ethically based societies with no religious perspective at their core. This is an honest request for information.

Here again you display a contempt for non-belief and your personal opinion that atheists cannot be ethical without at least a religious society to base their ethics on. The way you have stated this "request" betrays your position.

Nonetheless, I shall comply by giving you an answer: All of them. I would argue that the "religious perspective" is nothing more than a personal perspective - exactly what YOU are doing here, by declaring your spin on Christianity to be the "heart" of its tradition. Human beings developed morals and ethics because we evolved as a group-oriented species. Groups without rules governing behavior, promoting the general welfare of the group, would have surely led to that group's demise. Religions were an attempt to codify these rules and give them a special status in the group.

The preponderance of evidence supporting my statement is considerable, but a very simple and observable bit of it is the existence of behavioral rules and order noted in other social primate species like chimpanzees. Are you prepared to argue that a "religious impulse" is the basis for determining ethical behavior in chimpanzee groups? I'd love to see you try.

Feel free to give this a read sometime - it's a few years old but very informative: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/20/science/20moral.html?pagewanted=all

I welcome a rational conversation and always have. But I have not called you or anyone else names like "savages." I think that was out of line.

[Thats my opinion]

7. Ethical bases for societies

First, not knowing anything about your history, and just seeing what you have written, it occurred to me that your relationship to anything having to do with the Bible was hostile at best. If I missed that, I apologize. I guess I just wanted for you to read the three texts I suggested, without horns. They are the basis for all subsequent attempts to define Christian ethics.

Augustine and Phelps having equal weight? With whom? Phelps is a laughing stock, the epitome of religion that has gone wrong. He is a hate-monger. I personally took him on when he appeared outside a religious convention I was attending. The six thousand inside affirmed their anger at him and all he stood for. Where does he have equal weight? The claim that God has spoken directly to someone is always suspect. It is not an individual with a sour stomach that makes that decision because he claims direct revelation. That must be tested by the whole church. That is what orthodoxy is about. The real theological fallacy is that God is some kind of super person in the sky who goes around speaking to individuals without whatever is said being confirmed by the community.

The modern notion of God is not as a big person or a spaghetti monster up there somewhere. But that leads into a whole other discussion about the nature of God.—doing—not being—that which makes the universe meaningful, not who directs things as a drum major. I would like to engage in that conversation, but every time I suggest that God is not a big fancy powerful person up there, it is greeted with such derision that the conversation is over before it begins. Both fundamentalists and some of your friends insist that God must be a super human director. Fundamentalists say that because they believe it. Others say that because they don’t. But they both come out at the same place.

About the genesis regarding the ethical foundations for most societies. We will just have to disagree for now. Any history book or scholarly work in anthropology will make it clear that religion in most places—probably not all—provided the ethical substance for various cultures. Don’t argue with me. Argue with any of the scientific books about the subject. The answer ALL OF THEM just is a way to sidestep the point. If you are fond of scientific evidence, here is your opportunity to provide some.

Of course it was the further codification of rules of behavior that religion got around to. Who else did, and when was this codification evidenced apart from religion. I think there are examples. I just don’t know of any, and that is why I asked the question. But the ethical motives came far earlier than the codification, and without the codification the culture would have had no dependable way to function. In further discussion we may find that we are not that far apart on this one. Got to go. Its scotch time..

I'll get around to your reference--later.

[skepticscott]

8. What you're admitting here

without even realizing it (because you've twisted yourself into such a logical pretzel) is that people don't need god or religion to be ethical. At all. Ever. Supernatural beliefs just come along for the ride, but people like you try to give them all the credit.

You've been asked over and over and over: What ethical principles are discoverable only through religion, and in no other way. You have failed miserably in providing even a single example. So why in the world should we accept the negative baggage of religion as a price for something we don't need religion for in the first place?

And yes, every time you suggest that god is not a big fancy powerful person up there, you're greeted with derision. Because you've dismissed as foolish nonsense, and with a wave of your hand, the deeply held beliefs of billions of religious people, and done so with no facts and no evidence to make the version of "god" touted by you and your gaggle of ivory tower academics any more valid than anyone else's. While all the while pretending to respect the beliefs you so blithely dismiss as false, silly and misguided. That's the difference here, Charles...I don't respect those beliefs either, but I'm not a hypocrite about it. You are.

[trotsky]

10. I see you're having a hard time grasping the point.

What makes Augustine any more qualified to speak for your god than Phelps? Do you not agree that your god, should it so choose, could communicate directly to any person on the planet directly? Do you not agree that because your god has allegedly done this in the past, and has changed human perception of god in doing so, sometimes even overturning established notions about that god, that it could have exactly that with Fred Phelps?

The point is, no, you cannot deny this. It is the fatal flaw in any revealed religion. And despite your denial, that *IS* the modern notion of god. Far more people believe in that kind of god than you do. You cannot summarily dismiss the beliefs of the *majority* of Christians on the planet. This is why others in this group don't let you get away with waving your hands to get rid of the difficult bits of your religion. Vastly greater numbers of people believe in that god than yours. And if you're honest here, you need to admit that you yourself have posted topics indicating that you also believe in a personal, interventionist god when it serves your purpose.

Concerning the origin of ethical foundations, no, we don't "have to disagree." You can acknowledge the fact that non-human primates display signs of ethical behavior and understanding, or you can deny it. And the point you're missing here is that the anthropological works you want to focus on come AFTER the same evolution that has given other primate groups ethical operating rules. If you want to understand where ethics came from, you have to look BEFORE religion. And I think you realize this undermines your belief that ethics can only come from religion, and so you don't want to. This is unfortunate because I believe it's a very important realization and would lead to a broader perspective and personal growth. I encourage you to read more on this topic. You might be able to grow past the prejudices you harbor about non-believers.

[Thats my opinion]

12. Perhaps you might just allow a couple of new definitions.

To insist that Augustine has no more validity in Christian history then Phelps, is a notion you would do better not to bandy about—that is if you want anyone to take you seriously. Your definition of God in the rest of that paragraph is the same one fundamentalists have. That sort of God—at best—you reject. And so do I. You want to ridicule that notion of God, but you won’t allow from my point of view any other notion. So your insistence that I defend a notion of God that neither of us holds, but that you define. That makes any rational discussion difficult. I do not find any of the theists or even agnostics on “religion” making the argument you make. So why not accept that if most Christians do not hold new insights we hold, lat least there might just be an opening among theists to hold a notion of reality that may be quite different. When you shut any such notion off, you close the discussion. If you are going to argue with me at least do it on definitions of my side I offer, and not insist I hold to the definitions of “most Christians”.

Your chimp argument is specious. It is commonly agreed that civilization is a thin veneer over the jungle. The common notion holds that the fundamental law of nature is tooth and claw.

[trotsky]

14. Your definition of god is not held by anything remotely close to a majority of Christians.

And I'm not the one defining it. Your fellow Christians - a LARGE MAJORITY of them - are.

Poll: 83% say God answers prayers, 57% favor National Prayer Day

EIGHTY-THREE PERCENT believe in a god that grants wishes. That's 83% of ALL AMERICANS. Take away the 5-10% of Americans who are atheists, and now you've got ~90-95% of ALL BELIEVERS in this country who believe in a totally different god than you do. Do you even realize what a tiny minority you are speaking for? As a portion of the American population, believers like you are a smaller group than even atheists!

Yes, it makes rational discussion very difficult when you won't even acknowledge the god that the vast majority of Christians believe in. Yet you blithely dismiss their beliefs, and see no problem whatsoever in doing so. When you understand why you reject their god, you'll understand why I also reject yours.

But fine, let's put that aside. Tell me about the god you believe in. Did he really have a son who took human form and died for your sins on the cross 2000 years ago in the Middle East? Does he answer prayers? Is there any way to detect him? Was the Newtown massacre the result of turning away from your god?

My chimpanzee example is solid, which is why you haven't even attempted to argue against it.

You say, "The common notion holds that the fundamental law of nature is tooth and claw."

And if you'd just read the article I linked to, you would see that the common notion is wrong. Your claim is apparently that ethics arose from religion. But chimpanzee groups display ethical and altruistic behavior (as you would see if you would just click on that link and read the relatively short article). Therefore your claim is invalid, because chimps have no religion. Prove me wrong. Show me either that A) chimps have religion, and their ethics arose from it, or B) chimps don't display ethical behavior. That's all you have to do, either A or B. Pick one, and have at it. Let's have this rational discussion. Show me your reasoning that says morals and ethics come only from religion.

Then, I'll tie these two themes together and challenge you more. I hope very much we can move forward with this discussion.

[skepticscott]

9. Funny how

for all of his puffery about all of the wonderful conversations he has with "good" atheists, Charles has apparently never tumbled to the fact that most atheists were religious believers first, and know both sides of the equation far better than he ever will.

[trotsky]

11. I find this to be a major problem for many liberal believers.

As you noted, they summarily dismiss and belittle the beliefs of other Christians, but won't allow atheists to do the same. Just like them, most of us studied the beliefs of "traditional" or "typical" Christianity and found them unsupported and lacking. We just went one step further and also dismissed the fuzzy god that they believe in, too. Atheists who don't mention this are the "good" atheists, the ones who will sit in the back of the bus while religious belief sets the agenda.

[Thats my opinion]

13. Somehow I cannot get that link to come up nt

[trotsky]

15. Works for me. Try this:

Go to http://google.com

Copy and paste the following words into the search box:

Scientist Finds the Beginnings of Morality in Primate Behavior

It should be the first result.

[Thats my opinion]

16. I found and read the article--thank you .

I find it stimulating that in the non--sapien world there may be born-in sensitivities concerning the preservation of the species. These same chimps will, however, kill the offspring of other dominant females to preserve their own progeny. Part of this is the survival of the fittest, and part may be some rudimentary sense of ethical behavior.

I should like to think that this sense of survival is build not only into humans but also exist elsewhere in creation. I would suggest, as you do, that this ethical sensitivity is more than the creation of a religion, or any religion, but is part of the drive in creation for the nobler. I suggest that even in the plant world, certain trees leave a space at their tops so that other plants and animals can thrive in the sunlight. Process theology posits that there is in all creation a hunger for and a luring impulse that is always out in front, and which beckons creation toward mutual care. This impulse is what many of us define as the God impulse. Nevertheless, the impact of nature is the survival of the self and the clan no matter the expense to the other. Unchecked we will kill each other—and regularly do. That is the sad history of our race. Just look around`

What is it that moderates that tendency? It is the generation of human institutions—law, schools, hospitals. Religion did hot create this ethic or get it from God speaking to individuals. But there is something in the way nature is constructed that now and then, here and there, to this one and that one there is a rejection of tooth and fang and a different way generated so that we can live together in social groups. Religion did not create this longing for a different way of life, It only responds to it. Civilization cannot live without it.

That is why historically if you want to find the genesis of schools, laws, hospitals you must look to religion. Where else in history are these impulses codified and institutionalized? So we might say, this impulse is written somewhere in the nature or reality, and what religion has done is make it visible in society.

[trotsky]

17. I am very glad to hear this from you:

"I would suggest, as you do, that this ethical sensitivity is more than the creation of a religion, or any religion" <-- This is a major breakthrough.

But we will still disagree if you insist that the process is "part of the drive in creation for the nobler." There is absolutely no evidence of that - you are bolting it on as an explanation that you want to believe.

"I suggest that even in the plant world, certain trees leave a space at their tops so that other plants and animals can thrive in the sunlight."

Actually, one of the reasons for this is because by allowing some light to filter down, there will be nutrients available for their roots provided by those other plants and animals. Trees aren't being noble in doing this; it improves their chances of survival.

"Process theology posits that there is in all creation a hunger for and a luring impulse that is always out in front, and which beckons creation toward mutual care."

The evolution of life on earth destroys the notion of process theology, then. Predator vs prey. Infectious diseases. Pain and destruction. Yes, there are the occasional relationships which benefit the participants, but these are the exception, not the rule. Life on earth is a battle to propagate the DNA of one's species. Humans (and some other primates) have found it beneficial to work in groups, and to form rules of behavior governing the group to promote everyone's survival.

"Unchecked we will kill each other—and regularly do. That is the sad history of our race. Just look around"

Which is why human groups formed rules, from which our notions of ethics and morality arose. Some individuals will break the rules - this is bound to happen. I believe this is a MUCH more difficult challenge to explain for someone like you who wants to believe in a god that gives us our "impulse" to be moral. Now you need to account for WHY would your god create such a violent, vicious world? WHY would that god allow people to ignore this "impulse" to be moral?

"That is why historically if you want to find the genesis of schools, laws, hospitals you must look to religion."

Actually, the reason why you have "historically" seen this is because religious institutions have a tendency to keep knowledge to themselves, and control it. There was no interest in teaching the masses Latin and giving them their own bibles to read for themselves! Much better to have the priest class be the educated ones, to TELL the masses what the bible said.

But your statement is also not true. You haven't studied history very extensively if you think religion is the force that created those institutions.

We've made some progress here, but you are still insisting that your god, your religion, are responsible for all progress and development. There is no evidence FOR this, and quite a bit of evidence AGAINST it. You've begun to acknowledge the latter, which is good.

You're also continuing to dismiss the beliefs and practices of the majority of believers. If you're arguing religion is this wonderful thing that has brought about our human institutions, then you must also ACCEPT the fact that religion also brought us wars, violence, ignorance, and discord. Do you accept that?

[Thats my opinion]

18. continuing the conversation...

Last edited Tue Jan 15, 2013, 07:59 PM - Edit history (1)

There is a considerable difference in this sort of conversation than what has been the substance of so many other posts here. We are discussing very different perceptions, but while there is criticism on both sides, I do no find the vituperative put-downs we both have often experienced. I appreciate this sort of give and take, but some time ago I decided not to engage in or respond to the other sort of thing.

Now to you latest post. I have not changed my position. Your openness has offered me a better forum in which to discuss process thought, and that is what my last response was about.

Correct, religion did not create ethical sensitivity. It observed that it is the underpinning of life and has sought to codify it—make it visible and available. Nor does religion have a corner on sensing this lure for the noble and the ethical. Historically religion has been the way it has traditionally been articulated. Why? Because religion postulates that there is meaning and purpose in life. Often in “religion” there are those who insist that there is no such thing as meaning. Religion suggests the opposite, and believing that there is at the heart of reality some purpose for existence, has sought to codify how that might be addressed.

I would affirm that the evolution of life on earth affirms process though, rather than destroying it. I suppose we just start from differing perspectives. Mine is that there is meaning in existence, and religion is the most substantial way to explicate what that means and how it gets worked out in society.

When you ask why God would allow people to ignore the moral impulse, you are reverting to the definition of God as the personal, big, powerful person in the sky. That is not what I am talking about.

I would argue that religion has supplied the impetus, personnel and resources for the generation of the great majority of hospitals, schools and legal systems by which societies have operated. In Asia they grew out of monasteries—and still do. In the west they have been directly related to the church. I might site a considerable body of evidenced for this conclusion. I might ask what is the evidence that law, medicine and schools have been generated by non-religious sources. I would cite the library in Alexandria, Oxford and Cambridge Universities, Yale and Harvard. What might you cite? Secular institutions have both borrpwed from the older tradition and have only lately come to the fore.

No no, I do not insist that religion has been responsible for all progress, but I do suggest human history has affirmed that religion has been responsible for a substantial part of it. We don’t own the patent, but we have created most of the production facilities.

[trotsky]

19. Yes, I very much appreciate you not calling me a "savage."

And you have indeed changed your position. Before, you said ethical sensitivity arose from religion. Now you admit ethics came before religion. That's progress.

One thing I wish you'd do is stay on topic and follow the points being made. You cited trees "allowing" sunlight to reach the forest floor as being a sign of "the drive in creation for the nobler." I pointed out that no, it actually a "selfish" move that helped the trees' own survival. You failed to respond. Are you yielding that point?

Yes, religion postulates that there is meaning and purpose in life. But that's all it does - postulate. Non-believers postulate their own meaning and purpose in life. Religion isn't doing anything special, and it certainly doesn't provide a definitive answer that nothing else does. What it HAS proven in that regard is that people like you who envision a specific purpose will then often go on to force others to adopt that purpose as well. This has been shown time and again throughout history. So in this case, religion doesn't really help us gain something we didn't already have (the ability to determine purpose in life), and has the unfortunate side effect of causing people to be so sure of a purpose that they force it on others. That's a net negative for religion.

"I would affirm that the evolution of life on earth affirms process though, rather than destroying it."

Your affirmation is unsupported by the evidence. Evolution is not about working "toward mutual care," as you claim. As I pointed out, evolution is a struggle. It's competition and death. 99% of all species of organisms that have ever lived are now extinct. In other words, the process of evolution has destroyed 99% of all species! This is how evolution "beckons creation toward mutual care"?

"When you ask why God would allow people to ignore the moral impulse, you are reverting to the definition of God as the personal, big, powerful person in the sky. That is not what I am talking about."

Actually, it's exactly what you are talking about. You yourself called it the "God impulse." It appears you slip into those definitions of god when you choose, and then quickly run away from them when I point out their flaws. If we are to continue this discussion, you'll need to hold a more consistent position and address arguments against your points rather than discard them and move on to something else you can't defend them.

"I would argue that religion has supplied the impetus, personnel and resources for the generation of the great majority of hospitals, schools and legal systems by which societies have operated."

And the biggest flaw in this belief of yours is that there's absolutely no way to prove it. Post hoc ergo propter hoc isn't a valid proof. Religion was one of the first institutions that humans created because it also happens to be one of the simplest; and one of its first developments was the idea of a special class - the priest class. From the shaman to the cleric, the motivation was to promote the special connection the holy man had with nature, and make others dependent on the religious structure. But at its roots, religion is a human creation, not a divine one - as you have admitted, by accepting that ethics predate religion. You want to credit religion for development, but religion itself was the creation of human minds. We did it all. Without gods. And in regard to your constant "challenges" for me to name schools, hospitals, etc. created by non-belief, consider this: does the fact that non-believers were actively persecuted and murdered by your wonderful religious institutions weigh into this equation? What advantage was it to the non-believer to speak out about their non-belief and draw attention to it? And lo and behold, as soon as the times began to change and non-believers didn't suffer the death penalty for their lack of belief, we saw the rise of secular institutions and secular governments that have matched or exceeded the religious institutions that preceded them. Democracy, freedom of religion, secularism: none of these wonderful principles are found in your holy book.

Returning to the same point that you have ignored several times, along with the good that you claim religion brings, it is also responsible for a mountain of bad. It echoes the behavior of the people who created it. Humans can be good, humans can be bad. Unfortunately while religion can serve as a unifying force, what it seems best at is magnifying and intensifying the bad - hardening hearts and preventing compromise and harmony. It plays on our innate tribalistic tendencies. Non-believers have been integral in the most prominent social movements, from women's suffrage to civil rights and GLBT equality.

You give far too much credit to religion for good things, and refuse to accept any of the blame for the bad.