Recently on Culture Shocks Barry Lyn Interviewed Phil Zuckerman. It was a very interesting interview that I would recommend listening to highly. There were a number of questions and points I thought should have been elaborated on but in a set time frame it is impossible to cover everything.
One point I would have loved to have added to involved the question of whether the belief in God has to include the idea of perfection. It does not. However, removing perfection as a trait of God does change quite a bit. Many theists seem to think removing this trait solves a lot of inconsistencies and contradictions. It might but it also opens up a whole other set. It, among other things, opens the door to polytheism. If God is perfect and therefore all powerful there can be no other source of power. This eliminates the possibility of other gods. If God is not perfect then God is not all powerful which means there is no reason not believe other gods are not possible. After all, there is no other species that is limited to a single specimen. It also leaves open the implication that the Christian god is not eternal, is not the source of all things, and can be supplanted by another being. All points that Christian theology, regardless of sect/denomination, all vehemently deny. Basically, if theists want their god to be God, the one true god, then perfection is required. Back to square one and all its absurdities.
Saturday, December 17, 2011
Saturday, December 10, 2011
"Ordinary heroism"*
"...when someone does dedicate their lives to helping the poor, we tend to think that they have gone beyond the call of duty, not simply done what morality requires. It could be, of course, that we like to think this because it gets us off the hook. After all, if morality required that we did the same, then we are moral failures..." (Baggini 44)
This poses a number of interesting questions and thoughts. I think it is true that our heroes are never quite as heroic as we make them out to be. That isn't to say they don't deserve to be admired. It has more to do with how we idealize those who accomplish more than we do ourselves. It makes me wonder if an individual's flaws can be as inspirational as their strengths. Do we need to idealize others? Can we respect their accomplishments while acknowledging their shortcomings. Can we use both sides of our heroes to spur ourselves to greater goals and deeds? Can it it help us see our own flaws if we acknowledge theirs?" I don't really know but I think it is well worth contemplating.
*Baggini, Julian. "15. Ordinary heroism" The Pig that Wants to Be Eaten: 100 Experiments for the Armchair Philosopher. New York: Penguin Group, 2005.
This poses a number of interesting questions and thoughts. I think it is true that our heroes are never quite as heroic as we make them out to be. That isn't to say they don't deserve to be admired. It has more to do with how we idealize those who accomplish more than we do ourselves. It makes me wonder if an individual's flaws can be as inspirational as their strengths. Do we need to idealize others? Can we respect their accomplishments while acknowledging their shortcomings. Can we use both sides of our heroes to spur ourselves to greater goals and deeds? Can it it help us see our own flaws if we acknowledge theirs?" I don't really know but I think it is well worth contemplating.
*Baggini, Julian. "15. Ordinary heroism" The Pig that Wants to Be Eaten: 100 Experiments for the Armchair Philosopher. New York: Penguin Group, 2005.
Atheist Scientists and Religious Traditions
I've come across Elaine Howard Ecklund previously and can say I'm not impressed. She comes across as a pleasant enough person but she really does not know much about one of her favored topics, Atheist Scientists.
It will probably takes some time to get a copy of her latest work (with Kristen Schultz Lee) in the Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion , "Atheists and Agnostics Negotiate Religion and Family." I can get it free through a library database if I were willing to wait a year (publisher has a 12 month "embargo"), which I'm not. I will find a copy.
In the mean time the brief review I have read leads me to think it is probably as sloppy as her previous work. There are a number of things implied in Physorg.com's piece on her latest article that don't add up. The title itself has implications that I'd be shocked to find were accurate to the answers given by the scientists Ecklund and Lee interviewed. The statement that scientists "embrace religious traditions" does not seem to be supported even by what little is described. It sounds more like these individuals feel pressured by the prevailing culture to participate. That is not the same as embracing something. I also want to see their specific responses since I find it hard to believe any atheist let alone a scientist would view religion as a "source of knowledge." I can see them commenting on it being a source of tradition, sense of community, or comfort.
There is also an interesting embedded video clip that reveals her own ignorance and bias when it comes to atheists. She seems to be genuinely shocked that atheist scientist are not "against religious people." I have never come across any atheists that are against religious people. Many of us may be opposed to religion but that is not the same thing. Most of my family and friends are religious. I love them dearly and would not want to change them. The institution of religion is despicable. I loathe it's doctrines and its grip on society. I would love to have the majority, including my family and friend, to come to that realization but I would want them to come to that realization on their own terms.
PZ Meyers has commented on this article as well. He makes a pretty good point about how Ecklund skews her findings. He notes that her own findings only note 17% of the interviewees participating in religion. So the truth is that the overwhelming majority of atheist scientists reject rather than "embrace religious traditions." That, of course, is never emphasized by Ecklund. It seems obvious to me that all her conclusions on atheists is a result of preconceived notions and ulterior motives rather than the data she collects.
It will probably takes some time to get a copy of her latest work (with Kristen Schultz Lee) in the Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion , "Atheists and Agnostics Negotiate Religion and Family." I can get it free through a library database if I were willing to wait a year (publisher has a 12 month "embargo"), which I'm not. I will find a copy.
In the mean time the brief review I have read leads me to think it is probably as sloppy as her previous work. There are a number of things implied in Physorg.com's piece on her latest article that don't add up. The title itself has implications that I'd be shocked to find were accurate to the answers given by the scientists Ecklund and Lee interviewed. The statement that scientists "embrace religious traditions" does not seem to be supported even by what little is described. It sounds more like these individuals feel pressured by the prevailing culture to participate. That is not the same as embracing something. I also want to see their specific responses since I find it hard to believe any atheist let alone a scientist would view religion as a "source of knowledge." I can see them commenting on it being a source of tradition, sense of community, or comfort.
There is also an interesting embedded video clip that reveals her own ignorance and bias when it comes to atheists. She seems to be genuinely shocked that atheist scientist are not "against religious people." I have never come across any atheists that are against religious people. Many of us may be opposed to religion but that is not the same thing. Most of my family and friends are religious. I love them dearly and would not want to change them. The institution of religion is despicable. I loathe it's doctrines and its grip on society. I would love to have the majority, including my family and friend, to come to that realization but I would want them to come to that realization on their own terms.
PZ Meyers has commented on this article as well. He makes a pretty good point about how Ecklund skews her findings. He notes that her own findings only note 17% of the interviewees participating in religion. So the truth is that the overwhelming majority of atheist scientists reject rather than "embrace religious traditions." That, of course, is never emphasized by Ecklund. It seems obvious to me that all her conclusions on atheists is a result of preconceived notions and ulterior motives rather than the data she collects.
Monotheism and Morality
I not only would disagree that religion is the best source of morality I would go so far as to say it is not a source of morality at all. I do not believe that people actually get their values and ethics from religion. Theists may believe that they do but if you examine what each religion's doctrines and scriptures pass off as moral lessons it becomes clear that they can not be where individual believers are actually getting their morals. There is a huge disconnect even among the more fundamentalist theists. All believers interpret and pick and choose what they accept and apply.
In regard to monotheism I do not even accept that it is possible to gain morals from faith. I see monotheism as being amoral by its nature. I would emphasize that is amoral not immoral. I am in no way implying that monotheists lack morals, they do not. Most monotheists I know have excellent values and ethics. Despite what they themselves see as the source I would argue that it is not from their faith.
As I see it, to have morality requires two main components; knowledge of right and wrong and the ability to act on that knowledge. Monotheism fails on both counts. God as portrayed in scriptures is a hideous and quite hypocritical monster. The more abstract version of the God concept is too amorphous to be of any practical use. The moment you contemplate this God beyond a very basic definition you ended up running into all sorts of inconsistencies and contradictions. The more you attempt to describe/explain the more limitations you place on God. Since God is supposedly perfect this is self-defeating. I fail to see how such a vague and frequently divisive concept can lead to any practical knowledge of right and wrong.
It is also difficult to see how any true monotheist would have the ability to act on any knowledge they do gain about right and wrong. I do not see that the concept of free will is in any way compatible with the concept of God. This, of course, assumes God being defined as perfect and all powerful. Despite claims to the contrary, such a God would negate the notion of free will. For God to grant free will would require giving up both omnipotence and omniscience but that would immediately negate God itself by definition. An individual can not act in a way that is contrary to God. Since theists can not act contrary to God they have no free will and no responsibility. Basically, if God exist we are merely meat puppets. If you can not choose and can not be responsible you can not be either moral or immoral. Each theist simply is and must do what God has determined.
Theists like atheist gain their ethics and values from a wide variety of sources. Genetics, environment, socio-cultural factors, and parenting among others all play a role. And yes, indirectly religion as an aspect of culture and social interaction can play a role. It is not, however, the religion in itself but rather the ways the individual adherents interact.
Monotheism is amoral.
In regard to monotheism I do not even accept that it is possible to gain morals from faith. I see monotheism as being amoral by its nature. I would emphasize that is amoral not immoral. I am in no way implying that monotheists lack morals, they do not. Most monotheists I know have excellent values and ethics. Despite what they themselves see as the source I would argue that it is not from their faith.
As I see it, to have morality requires two main components; knowledge of right and wrong and the ability to act on that knowledge. Monotheism fails on both counts. God as portrayed in scriptures is a hideous and quite hypocritical monster. The more abstract version of the God concept is too amorphous to be of any practical use. The moment you contemplate this God beyond a very basic definition you ended up running into all sorts of inconsistencies and contradictions. The more you attempt to describe/explain the more limitations you place on God. Since God is supposedly perfect this is self-defeating. I fail to see how such a vague and frequently divisive concept can lead to any practical knowledge of right and wrong.
It is also difficult to see how any true monotheist would have the ability to act on any knowledge they do gain about right and wrong. I do not see that the concept of free will is in any way compatible with the concept of God. This, of course, assumes God being defined as perfect and all powerful. Despite claims to the contrary, such a God would negate the notion of free will. For God to grant free will would require giving up both omnipotence and omniscience but that would immediately negate God itself by definition. An individual can not act in a way that is contrary to God. Since theists can not act contrary to God they have no free will and no responsibility. Basically, if God exist we are merely meat puppets. If you can not choose and can not be responsible you can not be either moral or immoral. Each theist simply is and must do what God has determined.
Theists like atheist gain their ethics and values from a wide variety of sources. Genetics, environment, socio-cultural factors, and parenting among others all play a role. And yes, indirectly religion as an aspect of culture and social interaction can play a role. It is not, however, the religion in itself but rather the ways the individual adherents interact.
Monotheism is amoral.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)