The Problem with Religious Moderates

[Lacipyt]

112. You Are Welcome

But I think you’re asserting your own prejudices here, acting as if a person must reference God directly as a means to justify their moral positions. Baxter was a clergyman, so I’m pretty sure his faith had some influence on his views.

There are only two options when it comes to the central question, by the way.

How so?

Either we include in our morality calculations the opinion of a god (partly or entirely),

Whoa, stop right there. You’re anthropomorphizing a deity that if one follows Judeo-Christian traditions (as I do), is not meant to be shrunk down to our size so we can better understand. Writers as far back as Augustine, and probably further into the past, have warned about creating a small god for us to worship and fully understand and speak for. You seem to be adopting the Richard Dawkins’ view of God as just a chap who happens to be super-evolved.

or we do not. So what do you think - does god's opinion matter? Let me know what your answer to that is.

So does God’s opinion matter? Well, according to me beliefs, I don’t believe in a God that has “opinions.”

There are many people who say we need assistance programs for the poor because their god wants it. Are they fanatics?

I don’t know, I guess it would depend upon the means they use to accomplish their goal.

And actually, the "cosmic dictator decree" affects us all when the people who support said position have an influence on the government that makes laws for everyone.

True enough, but from what I know about politics, there are plenty of ostensibly religious folks who toe the party line on issues like abortion while ignoring their claimed faith’s decrees on the matter. Or is Joe Biden, a Catholic, a rabid anti-abortionist?

I need only to point to a few blue laws,

Beware of the genetic fallacy, in which you assert that the reason a person holds said belief makes it wrong. Don’t forget that it was the progressives and scientific-minded who supported eugenics while dismissing the bass ackwards religious folks suggested that it wasn’t a good idea to stand in the way of such progress.

the Bush ban on stem cell research, for current real-world examples.

Actually, Bush restricted federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, not banning of all stem cell research. Private and state governments were allowed to do as much research as they wished in that area. The state of California spent quite a bit of money on ESCR.

But god's still being used on a large scale. Ever heard of the RCC?

So it’s the size that matters? It’s OK to practice eugenics, just not on a large scale?

That nail is already in the wood, so you’re hammering on it as if disagreed with your claim. My argument is not that religion doesn’t have extreme or potentially dangerous components, but rather why is it the only area where we should allow extremism to judge all participants.

But, as I said, if you focus solely on extreme elements of any philosophy or belief system, you will find some dangerous behavior. You have yet to explain why we shouldn’t castigate Al Gore for enabling eco-terrorists, or how Bill Maher, with his anti-vaccination rants, isn’t encouraging creationists to question the validity of scientific study.