Ethics of religious discussions?

Post Reply New Topic

I don't know about 'New Atheists' but atheism generally in the West (in Protestant-majority countries, at least) I see as the logical result of the Reformation. Thus, I don't see it as an intellectual refutation of Christian intellect, but the natural conclusion of one particular branch of it. Had Dawkins lived in the early 17th century, he would've been a Puritan. The Catholic Church really got out the intellectual big guns (Jesuits and conter-Reformation) after Luther. Apart from France, most European countries with a high population of atheists have a Protestant heritage. I always find it quite funny (peculiar, not haha) that a majority Protestant country like the USA has so many fundies who come from, what I think, is the same intellectual lineage as the atheists living there. It's like the fundies got 'stuck' circa the English Civil War and the atheists kept going through the Counter-Reformation, Romanticism, the industrial revolution and the 20th century. The atheist movement should acknowledge this intellectual heritage more and the fundies should go read Paradise Lost and find out where Puritanism leads to if you take it with any degree of emotional and intellectual honesty.

I don't think so. There is such a thing as retrospective analysis that does engaging in false attribution, but I don't think this is such a thing. The huge amount of development that occurred within European society during the enlightenment occurred with in within multiple populations whose only major correlative was their shared faith. This shared faith, with it's insistence upon the predictability of nature, the equality of human beings and their intrinsic moral worth allowed them to apply their perspective in a way that the Greeks really could not. Whatever link you acknowledge between the two, I think there is enough scholarship on the subject to consider it pretty persuasive that there is some sort of a causal link; accidental or otherwise.



You chopped my quote there pretty well. I clearly said 'intellectual and political equal'; not moral and legal.

Okay, I'll leave it alone. I'll go read some Habermas. Maybe I'll be convinced.



What does it mean for me to consider someone my intellectual equal? I guess it means that I accept that they might be smarter and more learned than me, right? I fully accept that many Christians are smarter and more learned than me. Actually, I suspect that you might be! I still think you're wrong about whether Jesus was the son of God.

What does it mean for me to consider someone my political equal? I guess it means that I accept that they should have all of the same legal rights as me, and that they should be allowed to influence politics just as much as I am. Well, I unhesitatingly grant this to all Christians.

Hopefully there are enough like you to prove Habermas wrong.

*snort*
Your post:
http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html
Are you really claiming that Christians are not safe in Sweeden? Denmark? Norway? Japan? This is exactly what was referred to in the 'persecution complex' thread.

edit: no, you're just claiming that the credit for those atheists' good behavior should also accrue to Christianity.

The challenge with religion and faith in general is that people who hold the point of view tend to make extraordinary claims without extraordinary evidence or rather any evidence. Provided that believers can discuss their beliefs without threading on the domain of science then I'll most likely not get involved. There are certain aspects of belief and faith where I will get involved and that includes arguments around Habermas (since I strongly disagree with some of his statements on religion) or arguments of scripture such as the Pauline position or the morality of Jesus Christ.

What I tend to see are believers making extraordinary claims that lay within the realm of science who then claim to be persecuted when someone happens to mention that their extraordinary claims go contrary to established evidence.

When you in addition add the normal debate "tricks" of the believing sophists, who tend to change the definitions of words without stating that they are doing so, move the goalpost constantly, use the "5 year old argument" indiscriminately, draw on scripture as a factual source and so on, it creates an irresistible target for most Atheists who like discussing the topic.

As an example, it is not uncommon for a Christian to switch between a Pauline position and a non-Pauline position without making it clear that he or she is doing so many times throughout a discussion. It is not uncommon for a believer to use the "5 year old argument" which consists of asking "why" or "how come" in some formulation until the opponent is unable to answer then exclaim "then it must be god". If you want an example of the type of dishonesty I'm speaking of, look up any debate on religion featuring William Lane-Craig.

Somehow I doubt if its possible to have a discussion about faith without threading onto the domain of science because a lot of the claims in the Bible for instance are scientific claims. The virgin birth is a scientific claim, creation is a scientific claim, Jesus as the literal son of god is a scientific claim. The Bible as a moral textbook is a philosophical claim and thus the moral values espoused can be challenged from a philosophical standpoint. I suppose "water to wine" could be challenged on a chemical standpoint and resurrection of the dead from a medical standpoint. This presents a challenge because it becomes nearly impossible to have a discussion on faith/religion without introducing claims that can be challenged by a discipline within the "natural sciences".

Isn't it odd though that all human rights movements had to struggle against the Christian church/es and Christian traditions? Lincoln, who fought to abolish slavery in the USA, was opposed to organized religion and was either an atheist or a Deist (the jury is still out on that). The Southern slave owners, on the other hand, were typical Christians of their time and used the Bible to justify their right to keep slaves. Which was easy to do, because the Bible approves of slavery after all.

Another thing that the Bible approves of is gender inequality and female oppression. It is therefore no surprise that women suffragists and feminists were also strongly opposed by the churches and large parts of the Christian public. And if you go further back, you will find the church at odds with the most basic human rights, and in support of serfdom and monarchy rather than democracy (which has its roots in heathen Greek and Roman societies, not in the Christian tradition).

Kings were anointed by the Church and given the divine right to rule over their disenfranchised subjects. Consequently, all rebellions against monarchy were also rebellions against religious authority. Even Martin Luther, who found many followers among the peasantry, published a tract titled "Against the Rebelling Peasants" in 1525, in which he strongly disapproved of the peasants' revolt. Which is also not surprising, seeing that there is plenty of "know your place in the socio-economic hierarchy" in the Bible (such as Paul's "slaves, be obedient to your masters").

You are kidding yourself if you think that the idea of human equality is based on Christian doctrine and values. Even as I'm typing this post, many Christian churches are busy fighting gay and transgender rights movements, as well as the right of women to make their own reproductive decisions. The fight for equal rights and social equality is still a fight against Christianity.
And while I'm at it, many Christian denominations are still as strongly opposed to the natural sciences as they were in Galileo's times. I think it is fair to say that the majority of social and scientific progress in recent centuries was an uphill struggle against Christian dogma.

I second this motion.

The mission is to preach the Gospel to the entire world, meaning to give everyone a chance to hear it and make their own decision. Nowhere in there does it condone forced conversions. Of course during the Middle Ages this was done in the name of the Church, but they were wrong to do so. A forced conversion to anything isn't a real conversion.

The "challenge" is that the Church has a tendency to appropriate the values of society, only being about 20 years behind. People like Habermas are essencially conducting historical revisionism (which isn't always a bad thing) when they are ascribing change as spawning from the scriptures of religions as opposed to spawning due to the abuse justified by the scriptures. Even Christ himself isn't egalitarian, did he not say that its harder for a rich man to get into heaven than for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle?

The use of condoms to combat the spread of HIV is a prime example where the Catholic church has maintained that "Yes, AIDS is bad but condoms are just a little bit worse" until they got enough criticism for that position that they saw it as needing to change. There is no denying that Christians have had a positive effect in some movements, the anti-slavery movement for instance was initiated by Christians, however their opponents were often also Christians.

"Modern" values stem from the Englightenment age and from the Ancient Greeks, if you want to see the "contribution" made to the world by the monotheisms, look at where the world was prior to the monotheisms being introduced and then look at the world after the monotheisms were introduced. Parts of the middle east was highly advanced in Math, Medicine and other sciences, as was Ancient Greece and the Romans. Then Islam and Christianity is introduced then look at the scientific progress, human rights and so on of societies as Christianity and Islam spread.

If I may get back on topic for a moment:

Bold mine: I think the problem is that there is no such thing as a religious discussion in PPR, there are only debates. A debate requires at least two participants; a discussion only one, and perhaps the reason “discuss” is the last word in the opening post of so many threads here is that it is frequently the last word in a school assignment to write an essay; but it is not going to happen here.

Alex has been promising to upgrade the software for a long time; hopefully the upgrade will give a topic starter the option to put an icon in the index, one for debate, one for discussion, perhaps another for joke. A different set of rules could apply for each; in a discussion respect should be shown for opposing points of view and the use of terms such as “sky fairy” or “invisible friend” would be out of place in a religious discussion though acceptable in a debate; in joke threads flagrant insults might even be allowed.

That could, theoretically, solve the problem.

A synonym for "discussion" is "informal debate" so it becomes very hard to separate the two. Nothing of what we do here can really be called a formal debate, so putting a tag for "discussion" as opposed to "debate" (a debate which would be informal) is slightly pointless. "Respect" being shown for opposing views is a natural part of both debate and discussion, but Richard Dawkins use of the "flying spaghetti monster" or Russell's teapot are permissible in both, this is due to the fact that the difference between a "flying spaghetti monster" and "god" is non-existent for an ateist.

Or we could implement formal debating rules and ban anyone from PPR that can't stick to reasoned, rational argument.

Oh but wait, that would be religious persecution wouldn't it?

The slavery in the ancient Israel was nothing like the slavery of the south. There were far more rules, freedom after seven years and the taking of a person against their will incurred the death penalty. The word translates well as slave in terms of pure one for one replacement, but conceptually it was more like servitude rather than anything like the barbarism of the south. Further, both sides of that war were profoundly religious. Lincoln's goal was not to end slavery, his was to preserve the union, freeing the slaves was a noble means towards what he saw as a noble end. It was the Christian abolitionists that really pushed to end slavery, both in the United States and much earlier elsewhere.



What so-ever you do unto the least of my people you do unto me. Christianity, being a long existing religion, is no doubt has followers that are complicit in many evils. I don't think anyone would deny that; it is rather like shooting fish in a barrel. That said, I don't think you are diminishing from my basic point, that Christianity has worked for the recognition of the rights of individuals more-so than any other creed. As to your last sentence, you are just presupposing that your world-view is correct, I would fundamentally disagree, I support a woman's right to make her own reproductive choices but that does not occur at the expense of human life. As to opposing same sex and transgender movements, the Church opposes some, mostly relating to reproduction and marriage which are the privileged rights of the married couple. To discuss it further would be to derail the thread.



Christ was talking about the values of the right man, there is some discussion as to what he mean with the mention of the eye of the needle, some think it is a gate through which no wealth may travel. I do not believe that Habermas is engaging in historical revisionism, rather I think that it is the other side that is intent on that goal. I see no reason to write the efforts of Christianity out of the development of human rights and Habermas is correct in my view that it is only the Jewish conception of law combined with the Christian conception of love that can make a truly successful state. Habermas believes that those values ought to be appropriated by secularists and I certainly encourage people to take them on (in sort of the same way Gandhi did), it is a definiate start, a move in the right direction and I would applaud it. I do find it however, slightly optimistic to think that one can simply fiat into existence these values into the moral vaccumm that has transfixed the post-modern secular world.



Actually the Catholic Church has not changed it's views and according to condoms4life it is the largest institution in the world providing direct aids care.

Further:

"There is a consistent association shown by our best studies, including the US-funded 'Demographic Health Surveys,' between greater availability and use of condoms and higher (not lower) HIV-infection rates," he explained. "This may be due in part to a phenomenon known as risk compensation, meaning that when one uses a risk-reduction 'technology' such as condoms, one often loses the benefit (reduction in risk) by 'compensating' or taking greater chances than one would take without the risk-reduction technology." - Edward Green, director of the AIDS Prevention Research Project at the Harvard Center for Population and Development Studies



A common myth, Big Bang Theory was developed by a Catholic Monsigniour, Christians scientists have been and continue to be fully functioning members of the intellectual development of mankind. There is, as Alvin Plantinga puts it, a "superficial conflict but deep concord between science and religion, and that there is superficial concord but deep conflict between science and naturalism."

What does Plantinga say to support this assestion? Especially the bit I bolded - I'm stumped as to how he could arrive at that particular conclusion.

EDIT: Never mind, I've found it and I believe it to be false: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutiona ... naturalism
It's good to mentally toy with, though.
If you want to have that debate, feel free to make a new thread.

Yes, rules like "don't kill your slaves, but short of that you may beat as much as you like, because they are property".



If the slave was a male Hebrew, yes. This didn't apply to women and young girls, who were basically sold as "try before you marry" slaves. They had to be married off eventually, but their owner could give them to anybody in his household after he was done with them.



Unless that person was an 11 year old Midianite girl.



It was pretty much the same imho, especially for non-Hebrew prisoners/spoils of war.



Lincoln wasn't profoundly religious. Just like some of the founding fathers, he was surprisingly irreligious for his time. I doubt that he was the only Deist or atheist among the abolitionists.

In any case, seeing that the Bible doesn't say anything against slavery and in fact approves of it, the abolition movement had developed a more advanced ethic than the biblical one. Even members of the early church, who were probably the most attuned to the teachings of Jesus, kept slaves, as evidenced in the letters of Paul. And Jesus himself said things like "the slave who knew his master's will and did not get ready ... will receive many lashes". People like Lincoln envisioned a more humane and equal society than their contemporary Christian hardliners and the authors of the Bible.



I agree that this topic would side-track the debate. But I'm glad that I now have an idea of what you mean when you speak of equality.