Falwell is dead - Page 3

He does no such thing. It's more like a "Why should I respect your desire to see homosexuals treated as second-class citizens or what have you just because you couch your desire in religious terms?" type of thing.

How far do you think the Falwells and the Dobsons of the world would get if they based their beliefs on what the dust bunnies under their beds tell them? Why does saying "God wills it!" lend them any sort of credence?

And why should I pretend Gandhi's or King's beliefs are any more valid just because they do good rather than bad? There's little doubt that both men would do much the same as they did regardless of their beliefs because it was in their nature to do so, but I still think King was as wrong as any other person who believed in God. I don't look down on them because of it. The worst I have to say about decent religious people is that they're wrong.

But he is interpreting scripture. There's no avoiding interpretation when you read something. No reading is pure, and he's certainly using Biblical passages to make his points. Specifically, he's inserting it into a literalist framework that can be debunked by science. To use Sagan's answer above:

These guys are easy targets for people like Dawkins. The thing is that Sagan allows for the tradition (and it's a far bigger one than many atheists seem to acknowledge) of interpreting the Bible as metaphor or allegory and of appreciating its specifics as being tied to an era, but its general principles - the overall morality espoused - as being generally positive, if open to reinterpretation. As I understand it, Dawkins doesn't allow for these possibilities, at least in any way that acknowledges them as potentially positive.

"Potentially positive" is different from "actually positive", though.

I don't think atheism is inherently snooty. That's an attitude that applies to thinking you're right; what you're right about is pretty much irrelevant.

Telling someone that they're wrong about the afterlife - that it's one black void of nothingness and your life is all that it is and you don't get any more and everything you believe is a lie - isn't worth the aggravation.

As far as I'm concerned, interpreting scripture means trying to figure out what God was trying to tell Lot when his wife was turned to salt and such stuff. Of course that's allegorical. It doesn't matter what it's an allegory for. The idea behind the argument is, what makes the rest not allegorical? And why should these allegories take precendence over modern social needs and norms and opinions of right and wrong.

He's a social commentator, not a theologian. And he's no more and no less qualified to discuss the merit of religion than Carl Sagan was.

These are both attacks on some of the worst manifestations of what some call religion. Those are easy. Someone could just as easily (and unjustly) make an attack on atheism and science using totalitarian governments and the invention of the nuclear bomb.

No one's asking you to. All I suggest is that you not give a fuck, much as I don't give a fuck that homosexuals are attracted to people of the same gender despite my not sharing this outlook on sexuality. Shut up and let them do good works, just as the core concepts of their belief systems suggest they should.

The weird, essentialist idea that "human nature" is somehow responsible for people doing good works is patently false. Religion has absolutely impacted the actions and scope of those actions for certain people. Take Malcolm X, for instance. Minus Islam, there's no evidence that he would have had a perceivable societal impact at all. But I'm sure he and the rest of the religious world would appreciate your gracious condescension.

I made the distinction because it's tied up in potential. I don't expect to hear ANYONE say religion is always positive. It's certainly not. It has the potential to be, though. Some atheists don't seem to allow for this possibility.

I agree.

There's something to be said for admiring the silverware while the rest of your family says Grace.

Are they?

I prefer to give a fuck.


Religion is a man-made thing. Right and wrong as per religious spec are a result of human nature. That's all there is.

I'm not stopping them. I don't plan on shutting up for your sake, though.

Minus Islam, the world would be completely different. You can't say what would and would not happen. Minus Islam, maybe he'd have fallen in with a better crowd. Minus Islam, maybe there would have been no discovery of America and Malcolm X would never have been born. I believe the man's nature was what it was; that a religious movement served as his vehicle doesn't make any difference to my religious views or lack thereof.

If I told them I didn't believe in any god but theirs, they'd be ecstatic. It's funny how that one extra god I don't believe in causes so much trouble.

Dave, you know I love you and all, but I don't think you're in a bit of a glass house here. Unless you're suggesting that I or Seabass (the "certain atheists on these boards" mentioned above, I'm sure) or anyone else is actively trying to interfere with others' practice of their religion, which I don't think you are. No one's staging protests in church doorways or otherwise not letting religious folks do their good works. So your posts read to me like you want us to shut up because you get it already and don't want to be bothered with hearing it anymore. Which is a somewhat snooty attitude, if you ask me.

Yeah. Geez, Dave. It's not like I'm writing these books.

So is reason. So is the idea of right and wrong removed from religion. I'm not sure what your point is. Religion, if nothing else, codified right and wrong for a certain segment of humanity and perhaps made it more appealing by tying it to some "why"s that can't be answered by science. In doing so, it encouraged more people to help other people than otherwise might have been inclined to do so. What's the problem?

It's not really for my sake, though. I'm not religious, so I'm not really offended (except on sort of an intellectual level). It's so you don't come off like a self-righteous bigot. Not to mention there's a strategic advantage to letting religious arguments take place between religious people. Dawkins will never "convert" a literalist; however, as Sagan mentioned, some of the most insightful, skeptical strutiny being applied to literalist ideas come from religious scholars. Let them do the heavy theoretical lifting, and you'll probably see a lot more real-world (political, social, etc.) results than by the outright dismissal offered by Dawkins and his ilk.

Minus Islam, the world would be completely different. You can't say what would and would not happen. Minus Islam, maybe he'd have fallen in with a better crowd. Minus Islam, maybe there would have been no discovery of America and Malcolm X would never have been born. I believe the man's nature was what it was; that a religious movement served as his vehicle doesn't make any difference to my religious views or lack thereof.[/quote]

Minus Islam in his life. I'm not talking about revising the history of mankind, just the history of one guy. It made a positive impact on him, he had a positive impact on American society. I don't think I have to point out that we're the products of our environments to some extent. When Islam was introduced to his environment, he did better things for his community - there's absolutely no evidence to suggest he would have done so minus Islam. It's a pretty simple concept.

Ya know, it probably doesn't matter to most religious people. That's what's so weird about this issue.

You're actually admitting that they do good works? That's kind of new, at least, though I admit some surprise that you didn't find the need to offset it with some line about the Inquisition or something... you know just so we know you're not getting soft.

What gets me are the easy dismissals - the idea in that "Why the Gods aren't winning" thread that a decline of religion is a good thing. There's nothing in history to suggest that this is the case. Whether you buy the theological elements of a religion or not, it does not seem to me that a completely secularized society would be a superior one. In fact, I think you'd see a decline in societal cohesiveness and charity, a general dip in morale, an increase in suicides. Even in purely humanistic terms, it just doesn't seem like a positive. At best, it's neutral and not really anything to feel happy about - unless you actually consider it a "win," which I think would be pretty silly.

Snooty? Maybe. But at least my snootiness doesn't extend to the entirety of the believing population of the world. I don't think I'm any smarter for my lack of faith in God.

I think this discussion needs to go to the Religion forum...

Oh, holy hell!

http://www.conservapedia.com/

Right and wrong don't come from on high, they come from us. It's possible to be moral without being religious. I'm sure you know that, but many don't get it.

We don't live in the bronze age anymore, that's the problem. That it encourages people to do good is fine and dandy. That it results in obstacles to decent education and medical research is not. IDers and abstinence-only advocates shouldn't be given the time of day. Yet they are because they think the bible backs them up.

But the moral issue isn't about science, it's about human nature and society and law and all that stuff; what Dawkins called the shifting zeitgeist. It's about not needing to appeal to a higher power, and about how we don't appeal to a higher power. There's no small amount of people out there that figure if I don't receive guidance from religion I can't be good. And since religions would have us do a lot of bad, the argument that morality comes from God and is codified in the text of your choice is deeply flawed. Even the fundamentalists are using their own personal moral code when they decide that their particular religion is the right one.

I don't consider thinking someone else is wrong to be bigotry. People who believe in God think I'm wrong; are they bigots? I do find the idea that I can't be trusted or that I have no moral center to be an insult to my intelligence, though. I like living in mostly-secular Canada. I don't know how I'd feel in certain parts of the States.

Strategy? What's the objective?

Dawkins makes a convincing argument in favour of atheism. That has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with critical thinking. The social effects of religion are a different discussion.

No. Abstinence-only education, for example, either produces results or it doesn't. It's use should be based on that and only that. It's being endorsed by the bible - or someone's interpretation of it - should not be an issue.


I've never denied that religious ideas can inspire people, and it doesn't really matter if they're couched in religion or not: the Golden Rule makes for a smoother society and a happier tribe. I do reject the idea that an opinion has weight because it's codified in a religion, and there's an awful lot of that going around these days. If the Golden Rule resulted in total chaos, it'd be a bad idea, even though it'd still be in the bible.

Please. If I were going soft, Miyagi would be along to put me in line straight away, so I don't need to worry about it.

Regardless of how you feel about a completely secularized society, it isn't going to happen. Whether I feel it would be sweet and happy and smell like cinnamon doesn't really matter, since we'd just be speculating about things that we can't back up specifically. I think the gradual shift towards secularization is a good thing, but there's not much in the way of concrete tests for stuff like this.

Couldn't agree more, but then again, I might be one of those "certain atheists" Dave mentioned, so anything I say is likely suspect.

There are so few absolutes where it comes to "right" and "wrong", but there are some ... and I personally find it infuriating that some people need a book written thousands of years ago to help them figure out that stabbing their girlfriend in the neck with a pen-knife is "bad". These are the same people who sport erections while fantasizing over guys like you and me going to hell to suffer for an eternity because we don't agree.


Maybe religion played a crucial role in less enlightened ages to keep us from going nuts, but nowadays I feel we've evolved well past that point and it's doing us far more harm than good. See: Bush, George W for reference.

That is a vulgar and misinformed statement about Hitchens' view of the Iraq war. Hitchens had his feet on the ground in Iraq for decades and saw the destructiveness of Saddam. I'm not saying that I agree with Hitchens or with the intervention in Iraq, but to disavow Hitchens' entire body of work because of his opinions on ONE military campaign is beyond stupid.

Just because I agree with his views on religion doesn't mean the guy's right on Iraq. He calls Karl Rove "Dr." Rove, but refuses to call Al Sharpton "Reverend." I have no idea if Karl Rove actually has a doctorate or not, but I'm pretty damn certain Al Sharpton has his own church. So the guy does play with semantics like the rest of them. In short: hook line and sinker.

Oh? What are they, and who defined them as "absolutes?" This may be just a matter of semantics, but I think an absolute requires either an external central authority to define it as such or universal consensus among the race. We're getting into a different argument here, but minus belief in God or a race that thinks identically, there are no absolutes, only generally agreed-upon morals. Let's not confuse those with "absolutes," though.

What about people who need a book to inspire them to march for civil rights or feed the poor? Is that infuriating, too? Reducing religion to a system of punishment and reward is completely missing the point. I don't think MLK, Ghandi, or even some religious person who opens a food pantry are doing good works to receive some sort of reward or avoid punishment - they were inspired. Totally different.

Again, it's easy to use the worst examples to illustrate lame, reductive points. See: Stalin, Josef for reference.

Exactly. In fact, I think religion, at its best, is an eloquent way we make sense of those rights and wrongs. If some of the morality derived from those holy texts seems archaic, well, duh. Those rules were codified centuries ago - the important thing is the impulse that informed them.

To go back to Sagan again, science is limited in what it can provide in terms of ethics. I don't think religion is the only way in which people can come to conclusions about ethics and it's certainly an imperfect one (as all ethical philosophies are doomed to be, I'm afraid), but it's a pretty good one that's worked for a very long time.

You can pick out examples of it being abused all day, but the fact that it's had one of the key central roles in our development for this long and we're still standing speaks pretty well of it as an adaptive trait.

I agree on that. But you can separate that encouragement to do good from the IDers and abstinence-only advocates quite easily. In fact, given the number of religious people in this country who aren't IDers and abstinence-only advocates, it's quite obvious that many believers have little problem in this regard.

The idea that religions "would have us do bad" comes from a literalist reading of the books, though. The texts are historical and some of the direct commands are entirely specific to the audience of the time. The believers (and non-believers) who focus on these teeny details generally tend to miss the big picture, which is all about compassion and society-building. As for whether the commands come from a supreme being or if the idea of a supreme being is just a metaphor for some otherwise indescribable set of moral commands, I guess I find that I don't really care, as long as the actions of believers jives with what I think is beneficial.

It all depends on the level of condemnation or superiority involved, I'd say. I'm not sure if either is bigotry by a strict definition, but it smacks of it, no matter whether it's moral superiority or intellectual superiority.

As well you should. I do, too.

The objective would be to prevent religious literalism from having an impact on scientific progress. I think we all can agree that this is a bad thing.

I don't need a convincing argument to be an atheist - I'm already on board. I need a convincing argument that religion is destructive to society. I get that literalist readings of the Bible and Koran and fundamentalism are destructive to society, but plenty of religious people would tell you that, too.

Again, I agree. When the Bible is taken to be a set of strict rules and not an inspirational book filled with all kinds of inconsistencies and, most importantly, questions, it can be very dangerous.

I agree that an opinion has no more weight simply because it's codified in religion. If I thought that, there'd never be any point in me arguing with religious people, as I'd always lose. But I also don't think an opinion can be disregarded simply because the person offering it happens to do so using a religious philosophy as its base.

I think every sane human being can agree that killing is "wrong", barring extreme circumstances. Absolute may be too strong a word, but pretty damned close.


And you're using the best examples to illustrate a point, fair enough?

Look, being inspired to do good deeds is a far cry from being scared shitless of hell and thus avoiding murder and other foul deeds. It's not enough to avoid bad deeds, it's WHY you avoid them that gives you integrity and morals. Deciding not to rape somebody because I'm afraid of Gods wrath hardly makes me a saint. Deciding not to rape somebody because I - you know - give a shit about other people and see them as human beings ... that to me seems like a higher moral ground than the former, and a much healthier attitude to boot. When is humanity at large going to evolve to the point where most people realize these things?

Can you truly argue that religion brings people together, rather than separates them? If there is no God and you look around at the world, you see billions of human beings who are all in this together. We're all we've got. If we don't look out for each other, no one will.

When there's a God involved, it's so much easier to look at your neighbor who holds a different faith and see him as inferior - maybe even contemptible to the point where you want to cleanse the world of him. History has shown us numerous holy wars that illustrate this point. It's easy for some uber Christian to justify tossing Muslims into Gitmo because they don't see them as the human beings they are, they see heathens and terrorists. Likewise, it's so much easier for some hardliner Muslim to saw off my head because I don't bow to Mecca. I'm an infidel and God says it's ok to kill me and good riddance at that.


I'll be the first to admit that I have a chip on my shoulder regarding religion, so please do feel free to take anything I say with a grain or two of salt, but don't doubt my sincerity. As I've said I've been there, and I've done that. I've "witnessed" to people, I've passed out tracts. I've taken people aside at Christian rock concerts when they were at their most emotionally vulnerable to convert them. I believed with all my heart that everybody around me was going to roast in Hell and it was MY divine duty to save them from it by FORCING Jesus down their throats. I've seen the brainwashing from the pulpit. I've seen literally thousands of people base every aspect of their lives not so much on the Bible (which is bad enough), but on the words of some asshole clergy who interprets it for them rather than letting them find meaning in it themselves and has used his respectable status to push his own political and philosophical agendas on their weakened minds.

It makes me sick beyond belief when I think back on that stage of my life, and infuriates me more to see how much this kind of shit has spread over the last decade since I escaped it. When I was a Born Again Christian in the early 90's I was a severe minority. This shit is practically mainstream now.

And for the record, I do not consider myself an athiest. I'm agnostic. I have no way of knowing either way if there is a God. I think it's just as arrogant to state with authority that there is NO God as it is to proclaim you know for certain there IS a God. You lose credibility the moment you say you know for sure about something you CAN'T know until you're dead. I tend to have more respect for atheists than religious people, because more atheists I've spent time with have been far more sincere, caring and rational. That's a lot easier to swallow than some jerkoff demanding money and souls.

There are no absolutes, just local max's and min's. There was a time when you and I wouldn't think twice about regarding a wife as our property or throwing a man in jail for not going to church. There may come a time when our descendants consider us barbarians for allowing people to sleep on the streets and beg for food when we live in such a wealthy society.

I find it frustrating that people would say stabbing your girl in the neck is good because it's in the bible, or that my opinion on neck-stabbing is invalid because it wasn't informed by the bible. As far as guides to moral behaviour go religious texts aren't the Word Of God. They're what the authors felt was a good idea at the time.

I wouldn't know. Never checked. I was really surprised at the results of polls regarding how atheists are viewed, though. I don't see a lot of clear thinking on the matter. I do not understand how people can point to hundreds of years worth of successful evolutionary biology or something and say "Nope. That's wrong. Six days and a break is the way it happened. The Bible says so," either. I imagine it's like walking around with a head full of fuzz. It must be like thinking DVD players are powered by magic.

I'm sure many people still find comfort in their faith.

I don't blame religion for Bush's bad decisions, I blame Bush. It's possible to think abortion will doom people to hell but at the same time not pass legislation based on your personal beliefs. The problem lies in people pretending opinions like Falwell's have weight just because he waved a bible around while shouting them.

Sextuplets were born to a JW couple in B.C. not long ago. The babies weren't healthy and required blood transfusions. I'm shocked that the B.C. government even entertained the parents' arguments opposing medical treatment on religious grounds. If the parents had said they'd rather let the kids die because they didn't want the hassle of caring for sick infants they'd be taken away, but their religion apparently buys them a Get Out Of Being Decent People Free card.

Well, we don't seem to disagree on much.


It's not about science, though. There's no scientific reason to allow women to own property or to disavow slavery. There are plenty of good reasons, but they have nothing to do with science. And while religion isn't the only way to arrive at moral conclusions, it's used that way an awful lot. And as you said, much of what religion teaches is archaic. It just doesn't apply. But there are people who will follow it anyway, regardless of what the results are. Because it's in the bible, dontcha know.

And I do.

Sure. Most people manage to pigeonhole their religious beliefs into the real world to a degree that makes them happy. It's the troublemakers that are the trouble. And religion is so highly regarded even today that that troublemakers are given undue credit.

That's because you're looking at results. I look at results too. Others may feel that doing God's Will is the thing, regardless of consequences. Ask the Pope about contraception next time you see him.

I'm not arguing that it's destructive to society, although it certainly can be. Just that it shouldn't serve as an excuse for people to be taken seriously.

Fundamentalism isn't necessary. Few people would have gay men put to death as per OT spec, but the argument in favour of second-class citizenship is still based on tenets of Christian faith. I realize lots of religious people don't think that's right, and that's a good thing. But why is the opposite view given credence? Because it's in the bible?

The problem isn't the bible, it's the manner in which it's used. The people using it as a club don't even have to be reading it properly. Holding it seems to be enough.

I don't think so either. I disregard the religious aspect altogether, in fact. What the Falwells and the Dobsons of the world have to say stands or falls on its own merit.

As do what the Gandhis and Martin Luther Kings have to say.

No, basically, we don't. We're basically arguing in such a way that only two secular humanists can argue about religion. This doesn't provide a ton of room in terms of variance of opinion, but I think the nuances can be important.

Sure. The ideal would be for the religious to see the big picture about compassion and such and drop the focus on the tangential references to homosexuality that seem a lot more married to social codes of the time. I see this as a more realistic and humane ideal than blasting religion for not adhering to scientific scrutiny. It should operate in a completely different sphere. Rather than focus our energies on discouraging religious belief, I think it makes more sense to discourage those who seek to link it to science in either an attempt to affirm it or an attempt to disprove it.

One of the reasons we've gotten to the point where scripture carries weight in terms of scientific discussion of evolution, for instance, is that there's been a dialogue that goes back at least to the Enlightenment, in which science has been used to "prove" scriptural accuracy. Whenever a counter-attack is made by non-literalists and atheists that applies science in an attempt to disprove the literal accuracy, the debate is given additional power, and the literalists continue to attempt to use science to prove their beliefs. What we should be doing is cutting the debate off at the root by saying, "This is not a matter of science at all; trying to prove that God created the world in a certain number of days and that the stories of Noah or Jesus actually happened is futile, because they're allegory and metaphor. It's not the job of science to disprove the events of the Odyssey, and it's not the job of science to disprove the events of the Bible." Dawkins, in applying scientific rigor to the idea of God, simply empowers the literalists to keep the debate going in scientific terms.

On the other hand, allegory and metaphor (as well as the idea of mystery that is essentially given shape in the notion of God) are frequently devalued by atheists and literalists alike. There's a lot of power there. Maybe that's just something I respond to and respect more because of my lit background, but I think it gets short shrift in these conversations.

As is often the case.

True, but the debate doesn't begin and end with the Catholic Church, the Evangelicals, Fundamentalist Muslims, and Orthodox Jews. Look at the evolution in thought that's occurred among more liberal churches and synagogues in the last century or so. You'll see increasing acceptance of homosexuality, more women in positions of authority, open attitudes toward non-traditional families, etc. In fact, Judaism is a very interesting case in regard to analyzing results rather than faith. The whole system is highly focused on practice over belief. The punishment/reward system that Anjin mentioned is practically non-existent, with good works being expectations, not the means by which someone gets a prize of eternal salvation. The gist is "be a good person, because you should be."

Agreed.

Homosexuals are an easy target and have been in societies prior to Christianity, probably prior to Judaism. This probably has a lot more to do with the discomfort that men have with the feminization of themselves and other men. Certainly, the Bible codifies this and doesn't make things any easier for gay people, but the rationales are pretty complex. There are certainly atheists who aren't comfortable with homosexuality, as well. But I agree that, more often than not, the Bible is used as justification. I'd be willing to bet that homophobic attitudes would still exist in a completely secular society, though.

To use a slightly flawed analogy, the story of Jesus might have added fuel to the fire in Nazi Germany, but it wasn't religion that doomed the Jews, but rather societal attitudes about "race" and the position of the Jews as Others in the financial networks of Europe. Basically, if there's someone to hate, you can find justification where you want to. If it's not the Bible, you can come up with some bullshit about "race" or, in the case of homosexuality, poor genes, mental illness, etc. Did you know that the psychiatric community (certainly a profession far more rooted in science than religion) considered homosexuality an illness until the late 70s? Obviously, this is a case where bias led to some pretty stupid conclusions and was simply backed up with whatever tools were at hand - religious doctrine might not have flown with the psychiatrists, but science did.

Right. I think the challenge we face is in showing them how they're holding it wrong rather than taking it out of their hands and stomping on it. To do this, we need to understand it a little ourselves.

But remember you become what you hate. Personally I don't really care. I think of the words of Jesus when thinking about people like Falwell.

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness.

That would make more sense if Falwell appeared beautiful on the outside.

So Falwell was a gay necrophiliac. Gotcha.

It isn't being blasted for not adhering to scientific scrutiny. It's being blasted, at least in this conversation, for being held up as a false authority.

I don't know why. And I don't think there's any active movement to discourage religious belief afoot. But religion should know its place.

Rational terms, and that's a good thing if the literalists are trying to convince me that their way is the right way. 'Because I think God says so.' doesn't cut it.

Probably. I imagine any population would create a certain number of -phobes of some stripe or another. I had no reason to pick the homosexual issue, it was just an example of a matter in which some people point to religion as an authority. If it were 1950 maybe I'd have chosen divorce out of the air. Anyway, the secular attitude toward homosexuality is not the issue here.

Yet the Klan and the skinheads are marginialized while Jerry Falwell and his kind have - had, in Falwell's case - the ear of our leaders. Why is this?

Yes I did. The last issue of This American Life dealt with the DSM's rejection of that definition. The social aspect means it's not quite a textbook example of the self-correcting nature of science as, say, Michelson and Morley disproving the concept of interstellar ether, but it's not a bad example nonetheless.

If it had, no one would have made the effort to change the definition. And remember, teh gay was determined to be a disease in the first place in a culture heavily influenced by religious beliefs.

I don't see what this has to do with appealing to religious doctrine as an authority, on homosexuality or anything else.

Why? When it comes to religious practices like keeping kosher or taking communion, I don't care; it's completely not my business. When it comes to things that are my business, like determining what sort of education the next batch of kids get, I don't consider religion to be any sort of authority at all. It doesn't matter to me how people interpret their bibles in this regard, because I won't accept it as an authority in any case.

could be :?

The beauty that Jesus was referring to was not a physical one, but a projected since of morality. Men like Falwell try to project a since of morality, but it has always been a false and hole projection. In truth men like Falwell and Robertson are the scribes and Pharisees, the hypocrites of the modern day. They may say that the believe in Jesus, but if they had lived 2000 years ago in Palestinian they would have been trying to kill him.