Question for everyone: "IF" God exists, why did he create us?

[alexey]

What is better morality?

That which can be supported with a better argument.

[PeterMP]

That which can be supported with a better argument.

You haven't provided any argument to support any morality w/o appealing to the golden rule, which just begs the question as to why the golden rule is good.

[alexey]

That which can be supported with a better argument.

You haven't provided any argument to support any morality w/o appealing to the golden rule, which just begs the question as to why the golden rule is good.

I am not going to waste my time with somebody who cannot come up with or look up good arguments for the golden rule.

[PeterMP]

I am not going to waste my time with somebody who cannot come up with or look up good arguments for the golden rule.

I know a good argument, but you'd reject it because it isn't based on empirical evidence.

When I do a google search for "golden rule" "empirical evidence", I get a bunch of stuff related to economics. Something related to something called FDI and things related to the optimal savings rate (which the golden rule is also appearantly called too (I did learn something this morning)).

I don't get anything obviously associated with morality.

[Koolblue13]

Is the golden rule, do onto others? Because we are doing some pretty awful **** to others right about now, with no guilt or consequence. More slaves than any time in history, American consumerism destroying places around the world. Include other living things to that list and it's incredible how fast we are burning eden and everything in it.

The Almighty Dollar alright. That's what sets morality in this country. Not the god myth. That's just what gets used to sleep better at night. If you need god to be kind, you're doing it wrong..

[alexey]

I know a good argument, but you'd reject it because it isn't based on empirical evidence.

When I do a google search for "golden rule" "empirical evidence", I get a bunch of stuff related to economics. Something related to something called FDI and things related to the optimal savings rate (which the golden rule is also appearantly called too (I did learn something this morning)).

I don't get anything obviously associated with morality.

Empirical evidence shows 1000+ years of utter failure of Christian morality, and continued failures of religion-based morality around the world. It shows horrible failures of other dogma-based moralities as well. Finally, it shows great improvements driven by science, critical thinking, and secular democratic governments.

Yes I will reject your "good" arguments that are not based on empirical evidence.

[endzone_dave]

Empirical evidence shows 1000+ years of utter failure of Christian morality, and continued failures of religion-based morality around the world. It shows horrible failures of other dogma-based moralities as well. Finally, it shows great improvements driven by science, critical thinking, and secular democratic governments.

Yes I will reject your "good" arguments that are not based on empirical evidence.

A couple of weeks ago at Mass, there was a Franciscan monk who talked about how he spent his entire life in the back waters of the world helping people deal with hunger and disease. How many atheists do this: zero.

You have to look beyond just the Christianity you watch on Fox News and CNN. There is a ton of good being done by religion, you are just to wrapped up in other things to see it. Without Christianity, the world would be a MUCH worse place.

[RVAbrendan]

The Golden Rule is valid on it's own because what person wants to be treated like ****?

[alexey]

A couple of weeks ago at Mass, there was a Franciscan monk who talked about how he spent his entire life in the back waters of the world helping people deal with hunger and disease. How many atheists do this: zero.

You have to look beyond just the Christianity you watch on Fox News and CNN. There is a ton of good being done by religion, you are just to wrapped up in other things to see it. Without Christianity, the world would be a MUCH worse place.

Atheists (aka secular charities) do more of that. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, for example. They are also better at it. Among other things, they try to actually educate people with real books and stuff.

Christianity and other similar initiatives continuously suppressed science, thought, and reason throughout human history. Name a single discovery that has not faced resistance from religion. Even today powerful religious groups are tirelessly advancing misinformation right here in America and are building multimillion dollar museums to ignorance.

People do those good things you are talking about... Good people can do good things without religion. And if people do good things in the name of religion, they end up coming at a hefty price of indoctrination, ignorance, immoral belief system, and so on.

[Zguy28]

Is the golden rule, do onto others? Because we are doing some pretty awful **** to others right about now, with no guilt or consequence. More slaves than any time in history, American consumerism destroying places around the world. Include other living things to that list and it's incredible how fast we are burning eden and everything in it.

The Almighty Dollar alright. That's what sets morality in this country. Not the god myth. That's just what gets used to sleep better at night. If you need god to be kind, you're doing it wrong..

Your conclusion does not support your premises.

What most people miss about Christ's teaching on the Golden Rule is that it is active, not passive. Do unto others. Lots of cultures, society's, belief systems etc. have taught to "not do to others" but Christ says to DO.

The biggest problem is indifference, especially in America.

[alexey]

Your conclusion does not support your premises.

What most people miss about Christ's teaching on the Golden Rule is that it is active, not passive. Do unto others. Lots of cultures, society's, belief systems etc. have taught to "not do to others" but Christ says to DO.

The biggest problem is indifference, especially in America.

It seems that good portions of Christianity would be much more effective if that's all there was to Christianity. In either case, do you think that a belief in divine justice could be contributing to this indifference?

[Zguy28]

It seems that good portions of Christianity would be much more effective if that's all there was to Christianity. In either case, do you think that a belief in divine justice could be contributing to this indifference?

Not in the slightest. I don't know anybody who believes that. If anything, evangelicals want people to know God's mercy, not justice. Of course it is a temptation always to want to strike back, and many fall under the pressure of it. But God says "vengeance is mine" not ours. THe church is given the ministry of reconciliation, not condemnation. It's purpose is to be a light to lead people out of the darkness of rebellion against God.

No, I believe it is related to the materialism of this culture influencing the church instead of the other way around. Part of this is caused by insulation from the rest of the world's suffering and confusing the American Dream with Christianity.

[PeterMP]

Empirical evidence shows 1000+ years of utter failure of Christian morality, and continued failures of religion-based morality around the world. It shows horrible failures of other dogma-based moralities as well. Finally, it shows great improvements driven by science, critical thinking, and secular democratic governments.

Yes I will reject your "good" arguments that are not based on empirical evidence.

Ahh back to criticizing an imprefect system because its imperfect.

1. I reject the argument that Christian morality has failed. People have failed to live up to the standards set by Christian morality, but that isn't the fault of Christian morality. This is a kin to claiming that murder laws fail because people still committ murder and so we should get rid of them.

2. I reject that you can use empirical evidence to show anything failed w/o me agreeing on a defintion of "failed" because you can't define failed using empirircal evidence so at its deepest root your appeal to empirical evidence is useless because at it has its root the idea of "failed", which will be subjective and arbitrary in nature.

3. I reject the idea that science can drive "improvements" on "morality" because science can't define "improvement" or "morality" and so again such arguments will be subjective and arbitrary (though I will point out that much of science and issues related to critical thinking stem from religion (try reading about St. Augistine and the supporters and motivation of early scientists to so for every claim you make about science, I'd tell you that it is the result of religion) and the same is true for the particular secular republic that you live in).

4. So a system based on Jesus saying things like follow the golden rule and love thy neighbor has failed, BUT if alexey says it, it'll all work out.

Arrogant much?

Got any empirical evidence to back that up?

[alexey]

Not in the slightest. I don't know anybody who believes that. If anything, evangelicals want people to know God's mercy, not justice. Of course it is a temptation always to want to strike back, and many fall under the pressure of it. But God says "vengeance is mine" not ours. THe church is given the ministry of reconciliation, not condemnation. It's purpose is to be a light to lead people out of the darkness of rebellion against God.

No, I believe it is related to the materialism of this culture influencing the church instead of the other way around. Part of this is caused by insulation from the rest of the world's suffering and confusing the American Dream with Christianity.

I agree about contributions of the materialism.

However, I also think that religion is making strong contributions to the complacency. Beliefs in eternal life, in divine justice, in faith being the highest aspiration in life, in God being in charge of things - all of these can clearly lead to diminished sense of urgency and responsibility.

Do Christian organizations spend more money trying to advance Creationism compared to Environmentalism?

[alexey]

Ahh back to criticizing an imprefect system because its imperfect.

1. I reject the argument that Christian morality has failed. People have failed to live up to the standards set by Christian morality, but that isn't the fault of Christian morality. This is a kin to claiming that murder laws fail because people still committ murder and so we should get rid of them.

I do not take your suggestion not to blame the belief system but the people who kept misunderstanding it for 1000+ years until secular thinkers and governments came about.

Any system based on authoritarianism and dogmatism will fail the way Christianity has failed.

2. I reject that you can use empirical evidence to show anything failed w/o me agreeing on a defintion of "failed" because you can't define failed using empirircal evidence so at its deepest root your appeal to empirical evidence is useless because at it has its root the idea of "failed", which will be subjective and arbitrary in nature.

3. I reject the idea that science can drive "improvements" on "morality" because science can't define "improvement" or "morality" and so again such arguments will be subjective and arbitrary (though I will point out that much of science and issues related to critical thinking stem from religion (try reading about St. Augistine and the supporters and motivation of early scientists to so for every claim you make about science, I'd tell you that it is the result of religion) and the same is true for the particular secular republic that you live in).

Yes we need to set some goals in order to measure against them.

4. So a system based on Jesus saying things like follow the golden rule and love thy neighbor has failed, BUT if alexey says it, it'll all work out.

Arrogant much?

Got any empirical evidence to back that up?

Yes systems that are based on authoritarianism and dogmatism have failed and systems that are based on deliberation and reason have succeeded.

An integral part of a moral system is ability to self-correct.

[Koolblue13]

A couple of weeks ago at Mass, there was a Franciscan monk who talked about how he spent his entire life in the back waters of the world helping people deal with hunger and disease. How many atheists do this: zero.

I'm an atheist who would do that in a heartbeat and has done a ton to help others already. Zero my ass. Having "faith" isn't a way to be kind, even if it helps some get closer.

[PeterMP]

I do not take your suggestion not to blame the belief system but the people who kept misunderstanding it for 1000+ years until secular thinkers and governments came about.

Any system based on authoritarianism and dogmatism will fail the way Christianity has failed.

Yes we need to set some goals in order to measure against them.

Yes systems that are based on authoritarianism and dogmatism have failed and systems that are based on deliberation and reason have succeeded.

An integral part of a moral system is ability to self-correct.

I don't see anything in Christianity that suggest that it is based on an Earthly based authoritarian system.

You seem to be blaming Christianity for things that pre-date Christianity (Earthly authoritian governments).

Which is what your whole post is really about.

Personally, I'm a Christian anarchist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_anarchism

And again, I think it is a false dichotomy to separate the exsistance of secular/democratic/republic based governments from Christianity.

[techboy]

Okay, for the record, I have not read most of this thread, as I was in France. I don't really have any interest in going back and trying to catch up, either.

That being said (written?), I will jump in for just a second.

Christianity and other similar initiatives continuously suppressed science, thought, and reason throughout human history.

This is a popular (and self-serving) myth propogated by the New Atheists (and it's been kind of interesting tracking your progress through Dawkins, Harris, etc.), but it's also completely and utterly false.

For an actual evenhanded, historically accurate look at the relationship between science and religion, you should read the work of Ronald Numbers. You could start with this speech he gave at Cambridge. An excerpt:

I was asked to speak on the topic of “Myths and Truths in Science and Religion”, it turns out because of some idle lunch conversation a few years ago when Denis heard me talking about my interest in this topic. Largely I was bemoaning the fact that after years, decades, of research by historians in the history of science and religion, the same old myths that we have corrected time and time again continue to have a life of their own and to be widely known among the public. One of the biggest obstacles, I think, to improving the public understanding of science and religion in the present is to clear up the myths that still linger from the past.

The secular public, to the extent that these people think about science and religion issues at

all, knows for certain that organised religion has always opposed scientific progress, witness Copernicus, Galileo, Darwin, Freud, John Thomas Scopes. They know that the rise of Christianity killed off ancient science, that the mediaeval Christian church suppressed the growth of natural philosophy, that mediaeval Christians taught that the world was flat, that the church prohibited autopsies and dissections during the Middle Ages and the Renaissance.

In contrast, the religious people know that science has taken the leading role in corroding

faith through naturalism and anti-biblicism. If we want the public to take a fresh look at

relationships between science and religion, I think we must disperse the hoary myths that continue to pass as historical truths. And here I should let you know that I am using “myths” in the good old-fashioned way that it was intended, as fiction or half-truth, not as in sophisticated anthropological or religious studies – so we’ll just get that settled right away.

Emphasis mine. He discusses the motivations for perpetuating these myths a little more in this interview with Salon. An excerpt:

If science and religion aren’t really historical enemies, why do so many people think they are?

Because it serves the needs of two different groups. Scientists who are beleaguered today by creationists and by opponents of stem cell research like to dismiss religion as something that has been an eternal impediment to the progress of science. And the conservatives — whether they’re creationists or intelligent design theorists — probably represent a majority in our society. But they also love to present themselves as martyrs. They’re being oppressed by the secularists of the world. The secularists may only amount to about 10 percent of American society, but of course they do control many of the papers and the radio stations and TV stations of the country. So clearly these ideas serve some intellectual need of the parties involved, or they wouldn’t persist, especially in the face of so much historical evidence to the contrary.

In point of fact, religion can be argued to have provided a fertile ground from which science can flourish. See, for instance, What is the proper relationship between science and religion?, by Denis Alexander, a molecular biologist at St Edmund's College, Cambridge, and director of their Faraday Institute for Science and Religion. An excerpt:

For centuries, religion has had plenty to say to science. To keep the discussion concise, the development of modern science is a good example. It is often thought that religious belief was actually a hindrance to the early progress of science, and the disagreement between the church and Galileo (see below) is cited as a popular case. However, religious belief actually was entirely compatible with scientific progress. For example, when the top 52 scientists during the emergence of modern science in medieval Europe were surveyed for their religious beliefs, 62 percent could be classified as devout, 35 percent as conventionally religious, and only two scientists, 3.8% percent, could be classified as skeptics.4 Given that many of these scientists — referred to as natural philosophers — helped lay the foundation for modern science, there is hardly room to suggest there was any incompatibility between scientific advancement and religion. With those statistics in mind, it should not be surprising that a religious worldview played a significant role in nurturing the development of modern science. This is well summarized by professor Roger Trigg:

"Their belief in God gave them confidence that the physical world, in all its complexity and vast extent, could be understood. […] As a matter of historical fact, modern science has developed from an understanding of the world as God’s ordered Creation, with its own inherent rationality." 5

This is not to say that modern science would never have developed without the aid of religious faith. However, if religious belief can also function as a framework within which scientific progress flourishes, then there is certainly substantive interplay between the two bodies of knowledge.

Furthermore, religion has not only served to advance scientific discovery, but it also exerts a positive and significant influence on the practical application of scientific discoveries. With the constant advance of technology and medicine, new questions are continually raised as to what applications should be deemed ethically acceptable.6 (See Collins’s Appendix in The Language of God.) The scientific method alone does not provide a way of answering these ethical questions but can only help in mapping out the possible alternatives. Such ethical concerns are only resolved by standards of morality that find grounding and authority through faith in a higher being.

People do those good things you are talking about... Good people can do good things without religion.

In truth. I have little interest in this kind of argument of consequence. I care more about the truth of ideas. Assuming your point of view for the sake of argument, though, the research of Arthur C. Brooks appears to throw a wrench into your point, because as he reports:

Q. We often hear that religious people give more to charity than secularists. Is this true?

A. In the year 2000, “religious” people (the 33 percent of the population who attend their houses of worship at least once per week) were 25 percentage points more likely to give charitably than “secularists” (the 27 percent who attend less than a few times per year, or have no religion). They were also 23 percentage points more likely to volunteer. When considering the average dollar amounts of money donated and time volunteered, the gap between the groups increases even further: religious people gave nearly four times more dollars per year, on average, than secularists ($2,210 versus $642). They also volunteered more than twice as often (12 times per year, versus 5.8 times).

Very little of this gap is due to personal differences between religious and secular people with respect to income, age, family, or anything else. For instance, imagine two people who are identical in income, education, age, race, and marital status. The one difference between them is that, while one goes to church every week, the other never does. Knowing this, we can predict that the churchgoer will be 21 percentage points more likely to make a charitable gift of money during the year than the nonchurchgoer, and will also be 26 points more likely to volunteer.

Q. But aren’t they just giving to religious charities and houses of worship?

A. These enormous differences are not a simple artifact of religious people giving to their churches. Religious people are more charitable with secular causes, too. For example, in 2000, religious people were 10 percentage points more likely than secularists to give money to explicitly nonreligious charities, and 21 points more likely to volunteer. The value of the average religious household’s gifts to nonreligious charities was 14 percent higher than that of the average secular household, even after correcting for income differences.

Religious people were also far more likely than secularists to give in informal, nonreligious ways. For example, in 2000, people belonging to religious congregations gave 46 percent more money to family and friends than people who did not belong. In 2002, religious people were far more likely to donate blood than secularists, to give food or money to a homeless person, and even to return change mistakenly given them by a cashier.

Emphasis mine. Apparently, "good people" do fewer "good things" without religion, even if we limit it to things like giving blood, which have no religious "ulterior motives" at all.

[alexey]

...

In point of fact, religion can be argued to have provided a fertile ground from which science can flourish.

...

I am curious to hear your views on the situation with Creationism and Evolution in the USA.

For me, this is a typical conflict between faith and knowledge. Do you see it as something else, maybe as a unque one of a kind type of thing that came about due to a rare combination of circumstances?

Emphasis mine. Apparently, "good people" do fewer "good things" without religion, even if we limit it to things like giving blood, which have no religious "ulterior motives" at all.

I do not think it is necessarily appropriate to draw religious conclusion here. In this country, atheists are an oppressed minority with few if any readily accessible local community organizations.

---------- Post added August-17th-2012 at 05:18 PM ----------

I don't see anything in Christianity that suggest that it is based on an Earthly based authoritarian system.

You seem to be blaming Christianity for things that pre-date Christianity (Earthly authoritian governments).

Which is what your whole post is really about.

..

Christianity tells people to follow a set of rules or burn in hell for eternity. That is a fundamentally authoritarian and dogmatic approach.

I am blaming Christianity for being a messed up moral system. How else can people come to believe that it is moral to drown and torture people for their sins, to punish people for sins of their ancestors, or that they can get salvation through brutal torture and death of an innocent person?

[techboy]

For me, this is a typical conflict between faith and knowledge.

Your personal opinions do not trump solid historical study of the issue.

I do not think it is necessarily appropriate to draw religious conclusion here. In this country, atheists are an oppressed minority with few if any readily accessible local community organizations.

Atheists are so oppressed that they can't give blood or donate to homeless shelters?

[alexey]

Your personal opinions do not trump solid historical study of the issue.

Would you happen to know what solid historical study of the issue tells us about Creationism vs. Evolution? Is it typical?

And still I'd like to know what you think about it.

[techboy]

Would you happen to know what solid historical study of the issue tells us about Creationism vs. Evolution? Is it typical?

As it happens, Dr. Numbers has written extensively on the rise of Creationism in the U.S. (it's largely a fairly recent and U.S.-centric movement, at least at the start), so I'd again recommend his work for a historical perspective on the subject. I'd also again recommend you start with the speech I linked, as the second half covers this to some extent, including some observations on its recent global spread.

Beyond that, the historical evidence is clear that it is utterly false (no matter how convenient to certain agendas) that religion is hostile to science, having always impeded and worked against it, so to the extent that you perceive this to be the case for Creationism, no it's not "typical".

[alexey]

As it happens, Dr. Numbers has written extensively on the rise of Creationism in the U.S. (it's largely a fairly recent and U.S.-centric movement, at least at the start), so I'd again recommend his work for a historical perspective on the subject. I'd also again recommend you start with the speech I linked, as the second half covers this to some extent, including some observations on its recent global spread.

Beyond that, the historical evidence is clear that it is utterly false (no matter how convenient to certain agendas) that religion is hostile to science, having always impeded and worked against it, so to the extent that you perceive this to be the case for Creationism, no it's not "typical".

OK I'll take a look at it. I am not denying a possibility that the current extremely sad state of affairs in the USA (e.g. Creationism, seeming lack of vocal religious opposition to Creationism, vocal religious support for anti-scientific positions of the GOP, etc), combined with specific examples of historical conflicts (Galileo, Benjamin Franklin's lightning rod, etc) had too much effect on my overall perception.

And it still would be nice if you had openly acknowledged that you strongly disagree with Creationism and do not agree with its proponents :pfft:

[techboy]

OK I'll take a look at it. I am not denying a possibility that the current extremely sad state of affairs in the USA (e.g. Creationism, seeming lack of vocal religious opposition to Creationism, vocal religious support for anti-scientific positions of the GOP, etc), combined with specific examples of historical conflicts (Galileo, Benjamin Franklin's lightning rod, etc) had too much effect on my overall perception.

Actually, Galileo's situation happens to be one of the cases that is often exaggerated. It's covered in the speech I linked, as well as the interview. From the latter:

These were the giants — Newton, Galileo, Boyle, Kepler. Weren’t they all devout Christians?

Well, Newton was a little lax at times, though he was certainly a theist. Boyle was a good sound Christian. I think Galileo was a true believer in the church. And Copernicus was a canon in the Catholic Church. Kepler was a deep believer in God. So yeah, these people were believers. Occasionally, there were problems — for instance, between Galileo and the pope. But Galileo had gone out of his way to insult the pope, who had previously supported him. He put the pope’s favorite argument against heliocentricism into the mouth of the character Simplicio — the simple-minded person.

So Galileo wasn’t really arrested because of his science. It was because he was a lousy diplomat?

Yeah, he was a terrible diplomat, thumbing his nose at the most powerful person who critiqued him. Also, Galileo was not as badly treated as many people suggest. When he was summoned down to Rome by the Inquisition, he lived in the Tuscan palace. And then when he was asked to move into the Vatican, to the palace of the Inquisition, one of the officials in the Inquisition vacated his three-room apartment so that the distinguished guest, Galileo, could have a nice apartment. And they allowed him to have his meals catered by the chef at the Tuscan embassy. Ultimately, he was under house arrest in his villa outside of Florence.

Is the whole notion, then, that Galileo faced possible execution because of his scientific statements just baloney?

[it was] highly unlikely [he faced execution]. In fact, I don’t know of a single pioneer in science who lost his life for his scientific beliefs.

So not quite as simple as some would have you believe.

And it still would be nice if you had openly acknowledged that you strongly disagree with Creationism and do not agree with its proponents :pfft:

Yes, I'm quite certain it would be helpful to you to change the subject to my personal opinions on Creationism. :pfft:

[Burgold]

TB,

Don't underestimate the liklihood of death by cholesterol. Those Pope's were insidious and not against butter drip torture!

(Actually, interesting info I'd never heard before.)