One of the problems frequently encountered with theists is that they just don't know how to think. In a case of laughable irony I came across a Christian blog going by the name "Thinking In Christ". I delved in looking for some examples of actual thinking, especially in the form of critical or skeptical thought. Alas, I came up blank. This this blog post regarding the Federal Court's decision to rule a National Day of Prayer as unconstitutional is a perfect example of the fuzzy thought processes of your average Christian believer.
"The atheist sneaks across the religious/nonreligious line, steals a bit of morality from the religions he doesn’t claim to believe in, and then sneaks back to bash those religions he doesn’t believe in with their own morals—in which he doesn’t believe. For if atheism is true, then there’s no reason for anyone to care about how you feel about anything. There’s no moral basis on which to stake your claim that I should respect your feelings."
Atheism is not a statement of belief, it's a lack of belief in a deity or deities, so it does not claim to be true or false. It's not a position that makes claims, an atheist will simply request evidence to support the existence of a supernatural creator, and so far this evidence is embarrassingly (for theists) lacking. But was irks most is the theistic assertion that morality is claimed by the domain of religion. The canard that atheists "sneak across" to steal morals from the religious and scamper back to the other side is fuzzy thinking at its finest. Morality is a system of ethics that has evolved to enable societies to function, and morals (ethics) differ greatly from society to society. No religion required. Religion hijacks morality claiming that without God there can be no morals and it's every man for himself. Every religion claims it is the moral religion and that it is its God that imparts morals and behavioral mores upon the innately sinful human being.
But the morals of religion are seriously flawed insomuch as they offer rewards and punishments based on the behavior and beliefs of the individual. Atheists do not act morally in the hope of a reward and eternal life. or for fear of punishment and eternal torment. This is the domain of the religious. Theists will argue that if there was no God then they would be free to rape. murder and pillage. If ever there was an example of the weak morality of religions this is it. An atheist will be moral because it is the right thing to do, the Golden Rule applies whether religious or not.
It is our evolved nature that imparts morality, not gods, else societies would not have got this far as we would have slaughtered the shit out of each other by now.
"If God doesn’t exist, then there’s no moral basis on which to base your bow to the community, for the community is no better than the individual. In fact, quite the opposite, if atheism is true, then the community is nothing more than one more system to be gamed where possible to get what you want, at the cost of others. The community is something to support as long as it supports you, and not one inch beyond that line."
Again with that "if atheism is true" canard! The author answers the question himself in that the community must support itself or it will not survive. God does not give troops of chimpanzees their morality, and yet they have evolved societies and morals that enable the troop to thrive. I pick your nits, you pick mine.
"The truth underneath all the hubris is atheism comes down to a singular religion, the religion of the triune god me, myself, and I. My feelings are hurt. I feel left out. And if a national day of prayer hurts your feelings so much, why not go after “Earth Day,” which is a pagan ritual enshrined in public policy?"
The theist absolutely owns "hubris" claiming that in this vast universe of billions upon billions of galaxies, we are the special creations of a benevolent god who loves us. That is the very definition of hubris. The case against the National Day of Prayer has nothing to do with hubris or hurt feelings, it is simply defending the constitutional principle of separation of church and state. The government cannot and should not favor one religious faith over another. The Christians would be the first to complain if the US institute a national Praise Thor, or Fall to Your Knees to Allah Day - and that would be about hurt feelings and a persecution complex.
"I must say that I actually do believe in a rather limited form of evolution. There is one specific species on the face of the Earth that actually can “evolve” into something other than what it started as: Man. For only man has the capability to evolve from being a higher order spirit filled being to a lower order animal, living his live based on emotion and anger. That our courts would sanction and approve of such nonsense as “atheism isn’t a religion,” and “my feelings are hurt,” just shows how awry our entire social structure has gone."
What the fuck is a "limited form of evolution'? And evolution is not something you take on faith and believe, it's a scientific theory with abundant evidence. The Theory of Evolution is possibly the most robustly supported scientific theory that there is, with millions of peer reviewed papers, and new supporting evidence coming to light daily. It is not a matter of belief, and you don't get to pick and choose which parts you believe in "limiting" evolution to the parts that do not contradict your religion inspired dogma. That is not how reality works. The authors understanding of evolution clearly requires some work, how does one "evolve" to a higher order spirit?
Atheism is a religion in the same way that not collecting stamps is a hobby. One more time, and I'll say it very slowly, atheism-is-the-lack-of-belief-in-a-deity-or-deities, that's it. Would the author claim that a-santa-ism, or a-tooth-fairy-ism is a religion? I thought not.
3 comments:
Athiests 'hijacking' moral ideas? This assumption that those without a religious faith cannot be conducting their lives with any ethical code, irks.
'Morality' acted out to avoid punishment, or in hope of reward, or simply out of fear, is of a more questionable value than a positive action performed, towards another, in the spirit of 'The Golden Rule' or even with a full admittal of self interest. For me, many questions regarding religion and thought,lead me to consider, in humans, where this all begins, and frequently indoctrination begins in childhood. Indoctrinating children into religious ways of thinking is one of my 'hot topics' and hence something you will find me banging on about a great deal, when I actually find some time in my day to do so.
To teach a child that you 'share' or be 'kind' because god is watching you, and will punish you if you are selfish, is not teaching a child anything of value, but only blind fear. To teach a child that we are kind and considerate towards others because that is how we would like to be treated, or even to teach them that if you share, next time you need something that person may recall your kindness and be more likely to reciprocate, is teaching them to THINK, and to use their own judgement to form and maintain relationships with others.
Why not teach a certain pragmatism to children? As Paul points out, you scratch mine and I'll scratch yours is not a 'morally' bereft approach. Nature works well using reciprocity and symbiosis. Maybe we should leave the parasite of religious thought out of the picture, lest it sucks our childrens' minds dry.
If we believe that we are doing good to avoid punishment, and if we raise a child to do 'good' simply because 'god is watching them', then what will happen to that child's belief system if, as an adult, they reject the belief, despite being effectively brain washed, and come to the conclusion that nobody is actually watching them at all?
Perhaps then, you have a dangerous animal - a person that has never evolved their own inner moral code based on judgement and what they have learned about people's feelings, reactions and motives, and who has just shaken off the shackles of fear. Light fuse, and stand well back.
Nicely put Jan. What amazes me the most is that I managed to publish a post about "Christian Thinking" and I did not mention "oxymoron". Not even once. Go figure!
Or indeed, the word moron.
Post a Comment