An Atheist Vision for the Future
I imagine no religion, like John Lennon did, although not the Marxism implicit in his song. But what is the vision for the future that we atheists and skeptics have? What if atheism were predominant in America? What then? Would atheists want to marginalize and kill Christians? Would it return to the days of Lenin, Stalin and others in which there was mass killing? I think Christians are scared about this. I really do. Can we assauge their fears right here and now? What say you?
I would like for the whole world to embrace democratic capitalism, the kind we have in America, with a constitution like it, and with the separation of powers. I want a firm wall between church and state, and that means believers would have no fear of atheists since the state could not and should not enforce anti-religious beliefs either, even if we were a majority of atheists. There would be no religious nor non-religious litmus test for running for office, and no state supported religion or non-religion.
Religious people would still be free to practice their religion as they see fit, although we will still have to step in like we do now when they refuse life saving medical treatment for their children. Religious people will be able to argue their cases in public and before the courts if their rights are being violated, much like it is now, since we grant minorities legal rights that the majority opposes.
Christian does that assauge your fears?
I would like for the whole world to embrace democratic capitalism, the kind we have in America, with a constitution like it, and with the separation of powers. I want a firm wall between church and state, and that means believers would have no fear of atheists since the state could not and should not enforce anti-religious beliefs either, even if we were a majority of atheists. There would be no religious nor non-religious litmus test for running for office, and no state supported religion or non-religion.
Religious people would still be free to practice their religion as they see fit, although we will still have to step in like we do now when they refuse life saving medical treatment for their children. Religious people will be able to argue their cases in public and before the courts if their rights are being violated, much like it is now, since we grant minorities legal rights that the majority opposes.
Christian does that assauge your fears?
49 comments:
I don't know about you, John, but I'm looking forward to the day when I can knock down old ladies in the street with impunity.
And I like Lennon's song "Imagine" too, but as many people have pointed out, it's a bit ironic that a multi-millionaire fondly imagined a world of "no possessions".
Would atheists remove the words "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance -- or would they leave them in, merely inserting the word "no" between "under" and "God"?
I don't know why American christians fear communist dictators so much. They spent most of the time persecuting heretics (eastern orthodox christians), or in East Asian countries, pagans (Confucians, Taoists and Buddhists). Then these dictators turned on their own atheistic followers who didn't seem subservient enough. If anything, they did the lord's work by reducing the numbers of wrong-thinking people on the planet.
Mark Plus,
You forgot Hitler, who got rid of some six milion Christ-rejecting Jews, God bless his soul! :-)
(Get a grip, son, would You?) :-\
Ah... I'm not worried about mass killing (yet), bowling old lady pins, or even the idea of atheists being in government.
I am sincerely curious about how a moral structure would work within an atheist paradigm. John Adams said our system of government would only work for Christian people, or people with the same notions of liberty combined with self control and care for our neighbor. Not to put John Adams on a pedestal, but I think he has a point.
I think if Bertrand Russel were to be president he might turn the White House into a brothel. I have doubts about a separation between church and state because morality and ethics stem from what we believe.
What is the bedrock of morality in an atheist paradigm? On what foundation is ethical governing based?
Maybe the issues are more along the lines of power more than Atheist vs. Christian. Since any power structure is prone to corruption maybe it has nothing to do with theological views, but personal integrity. Then I am left with the question of what a person bases their integrity on. Hmmm...Kant is pretty convincing in his arguments for a reason based morality, but he still believed in God and credited him with instilling the seeds of morality within us.
Jennifer asks:
What is the bedrock of morality in an atheist paradigm? On what foundation is ethical governing based?
How would you characterize an atheist moral paradigm, as opposed to a Christian moral paradigm?
Jennifer asks:
What is the bedrock of morality in an atheist paradigm? On what foundation is ethical governing based?
How would you characterize an atheist moral paradigm, as opposed to a Christian moral paradigm?
I don't know how to answer that because I don't know what the atheist paradigm is.
I think the short version of the Christian moral paradigm, or at least what it should be, is one of:
1) placing value on life
2) forgiving and being forgiven while not losing sight of an ultimate goodness to reach toward
3) healing the hearts, minds and bodies of all people, Christian or not
4) promoting gentleness and innocence while not dulling intelligence, in other words, being innocent as doves and shrewd as serpents.
Those are some things I can think of off the top of my head.
Would atheists develop creeds? Not for the sake of belonging to the group, but for the sake of guidelines for conduct and constitution?
Jennifer writes:
I don't know how to answer that because I don't know what the atheist paradigm is.
Perhaps that is because there isn't any particular atheist paradigm, Jennifer.
Are you quite sure that you understand what a Christian moral paradigm is? I would have though that it might be something like the following:
"Any moral paradigm that implicitly denies its own validity unless the statement 'God exists, and Jesus is God' is true."
By implication you could have Jewish moral paradigm, which would be any moral paradigm that implicitly denies its own validity unless the statement, "God exists, the Jews are God's chosen people, and Jesus was not the Messiah" is true. And you could have an Islamic moral paradigm, which would be any moral paradigm that implicitly denies its own validity unless the statement "There is no God but Allah, and Muhammed (PBUH) is is prophet" is true.
The various principles you ticked off could just as easily be part of a humanist moral paradigm as a Christian moral paradigm, could they not?
Jennifer says: "John Adams said our system of government would only work for Christian people, or people with the same notions of liberty combined with self control and care for our neighbor."
John Adams lived in a time when people had only the most rudimentary ideas about how human societies work, so his opinion today about that has no more weight than his farmhands'. We have a considerably more sophisticated understanding of social science now, and the empirical evidence shows that developed democratic societies, even non-Western ones like Japan's, can function and deliver a high quality of life without a belief in gods.
Jennifer writes:
John Adams said our system of government would only work for Christian people, or people with the same notions of liberty combined with self control and care for our neighbor.
This is obviously a paraphrase rather than a direct quote, so I can't speak to its veracity. Assuming that Adams actually said something like this, what he appears to be saying is that our system of government would only work for Christian people -- or people who were not Christian, but who....
Adams called himself a Christian, but my understanding is that, as a Unitarian, he actually rejected the traditional Christian orthodoxy of the Trinity.
Jennifer,
You just described my paradigm, and I am not Christian. Thank you for proving that those qualities are not only valued in Christianity.
Hi Gary,
He said it:
We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
John Adams Oct. 11,1798
Whether John Adams was a Unitarian, Quaker, Roman Catholic, Orthodox or whatever, isn't the issue. He was raised in a culture that was steeped in differing forms of Christianity, but Christianity nonetheless.
The various principles you ticked off could just as easily be part of a humanist moral paradigm as a Christian moral paradigm, could they not?
Well, I'm not sure - are you? I think it's very difficult, if not impossible, to separate the infusing influences of the secular upon the religious and the religious upon the secular. I'm not sure that there is such a thing as an independent moral paradigm, but for the necessity of using labels to identify paradigms, I trace this "Christian paradigm" back to major shifts in culture which have been accredited to people who claimed a belief in God.
Hi Mark,
We have a considerably more sophisticated understanding of social science now,...
We may or may not have a more sophisticated understanding, I don't know. The adages of Benjamin Franklin still hold true today. Isn't it like building blocks? We keep learning as time goes on, but the layers of the foundation are what brought us where we are today; we meaning the developed world...which was mostly shaped by people claiming to be "Christian".
This is what I see historically and culturally.
Hi Phillip,
You just described my paradigm, and I am not Christian. Thank you for proving that those qualities are not only valued in Christianity.
But have you been raised in a predominantly christianized nation?
I certainly don't think those qualities are only valued in Christianity, but I am sure that Christianity contains all of them to such a degree that we have phrases such as "it's the Christian thing to do", or "that is very un-Christian". I don't use those phrases nor do I know anyone who does, but it does help in identifying social paradigms.
I am not trying to discredit other religions, but to establish a basis for comparing atheist paradigms with what this blog is debunking - Christianity.
If the above is what you want for the future and it is your paradigm too, great!
Thank you for this post, sir.
I agree with all the points. But I wonder how clear a wall between church and state could ever be as long as a religion has a claim on reality. Denying that reality, and asserting a non-supernatural one, from the outset, is a problem because it states a certainty in the same manner that the religious claim their certainties, at least from the perspective of the religious, and it becomes such a tricky thing when two sides believe with every fiber of their being that the way they see the universe and its laws is correct, and the other side is just imposing on them. And in some issues, say, abortion or gay rights, this reality seems to directly inform these decisions, and it is unclear exactly where the state law-making and religious authority separate.
I don't agree with this person above who says that Bertrand Russell as president would make it a brothel. Leading a country has less to do with the imposition of a leader's personal moral standards than other qualities. I wonder if I can cite Clinton vs Bush as an example. Our country isn't ready for an atheist president, but considering how dominant atheism is in the intellectual elite, sometimes I do wonder how many former presidents who come from there know that there are certain things they would have to concede to become the nation's leader. Sounds a bit conspiracy theory-ish, but my point is simply that effective leadership and policy making does not have to hinge on beliefs like life after death or a creator.
On the other hand, of course, i would be extremely wary of a president whose worldview is informed by a belief that the world is 8,000 years old.
as to the question about how morality is arrived at in an atheistic framework, i would say that a similar question could be asked about the judeo-christianity: does the bible have such a clear stance on all the moral issues of today? It was once church dogma that the universe was geocentric. While I'm not saying that Christianity doesn't inform our morality, I would point to the unclear nature of where exactly the Bible, and not the people who selectively interpret it, stands on issues like capital punishment, abortion, war vs. nonviolence vs. self-defense, women's rights vs. gay rights and all human rights - permissiveness vs. restriction from the state, submission to the state, and so on.
I'll second Richard on this. Neither the Bible nor any other form of dogma or theology provide an even remotely firm moral ground to stand on. Furthermore the very nature of faith has built in a way to subvert the ethical by claiming direct revelation. While I'm not a big fan of Christian, or typical Humanist ethics, nonetheless, Christianity is in no place to begin judging the "origin" of where others arise from.
Jennifer,
Your question about what kind of moral society we would have in the absence of God belief is one I hear frequently and think it deserves in answer. But there really is no need for much conjecture. In a 2005 study published in the Journal of Religion and Society, Gregory Paul crunches the data and the results should put your fears to rest.
The data show that the least religious, most secular democracies enjoy lower rates of violent crime, juvenile mortality, marital dysfunction, teen pregnancy and abortion. Paul then makes the important point that, “The non-religious, proevolution democracies contradict the dictum that a society cannot enjoy good conditions unless most citizens ardently believe in a moral creator. The widely held fear that a Godless citizenry must experience societal disaster is therefore refuted. Contradicting these conclusions requires demonstrating a positive link between theism and societal conditions in the first world with a similarly large body of data – a doubtful possibility in view of the observable trends.”
I think Adams stands corrected (besides, he only felt the mass rabble needed religion to keep them from killing each other, the upper crust like himself were above such things and he actually had a personal disdain for it).
Paul’s article can be found here. http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html
Mr. Loftus, I think your original question has been answered in the affirmative.
Atheists would do to Christians what they have done EVERY time they had the power to do so. (Oh, and the "Cathoic" Hitel murdered over three million Catholic Poles.)
The best explication of this is found in the Three Volume series The Gulag Archipelago by Alexander Solzhenitsyn; it makes clear that atheists targeted believers because of atheism itself and unbridled hatred of religion.
Moreover, three of my grandparents escaped from officially atheistic governments...and two were maimed in prison because of their refusal to deny Christ.
I have seen the results, I know what happened. There are many of us out here who won't be fooled by atheists protestations that "it will be different this time".
When I am old enough to get into politics, I will work against them...but rest assured that I will keep my views private until the proper time.
By the way, Mr. Loftus, why do you arbitrarlily reject the Marxist aspects of Lennon's song?
Marxism is firmly on the side of atheism...you know, dialectical materialism and all that jive.
Jennifer writes:
Whether John Adams was a Unitarian, Quaker, Roman Catholic, Orthodox or whatever, isn't the issue. He was raised in a culture that was steeped in differing forms of Christianity, but Christianity nonetheless.
To be specific, John Adams was raised in a culture steeped in the Congregational Church -- he himself had been raised a Congregationalist. In his home state of Massachusetts, every man was required by law to belong to a church, which was allowed to tax its members. In theory, after 1780 one could belong to any church. In practice, most people had to belong to the Congregationalists, and therefore had to allow themselves to be taxed by them.
Jennifer continues:
I think it's very difficult, if not impossible, to separate the infusing influences of the secular upon the religious and the religious upon the secular. I'm not sure that there is such a thing as an independent moral paradigm, but for the necessity of using labels to identify paradigms, I trace this "Christian paradigm" back to major shifts in culture which have been accredited to people who claimed a belief in God.
Perhaps so, but then the conclusion we must come to is that there is no distinction to be made between a "Christian moral paradigm" held by a Christian, and that very same "Christian moral paradigm" held by an atheist. Given that that is the case, what reason would a Christian have to fear an atheist subscribing to a "Christian moral paradigm" in (for example) the White House?
Not that we're likely to see an openly avowed atheist president any time soon, mind you. Whether our Constitution was "made for a religious people" or not, it states quite explicitly that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." Atheism is not now and never has been a legal bar to the presidency -- but it's still very much a political bar. An atheist might set up a White House brothel, don'tcha know, just as a Catholic president might allow fornication between priests and nuns in the basement, or a Jewish president might snatch Christian babies and serve them up to guests at a state dinner.
Adamh writes:
The best explication of this is found in the Three Volume series The Gulag Archipelago by Alexander Solzhenitsyn; it makes clear that atheists targeted believers because of atheism itself and unbridled hatred of religion.
On behalf of atheists everywhere, allow me to apologize for Josef Stalin. Sorry about that. Though of course, if the whole truth be told, Stalin targeted, not just believers, but anyone who might be a possible rival for power. His most prominent victims were all atheists in good standing, the "Old Bolsheviks."
So, christians fear that somehow an atheistic society would make them meet Jesus sooner than their holy book predicts? If this is for real than these people of faith have so little faith in their holy books, their fellow human beings and ultimately in their God.
M. Tully,
Thanks for taking the time to post the article. I don't want to start an off topic thread here, but I want to make a brief comment on the results of the article.
Every nation listed as a pro-evolution democracy is part of the legacy of Charlemagne to varying degrees. The Roman Church is what brought Europe into existence - through force, but it was still the unifying factor in partnership with Charlemagne as king.
Most of the countries listed are also socialist. The only gripe with that is the position it puts people in when a dictator rises to power such as Hitler. (general population is very dependent upon government and is unarmed)
The indicators used are based on the morals of the West - Christian.
I was not comparing the U.S. with Europe, but the whole West - including Europe - with a godless (specifically Judeo-Christian) paradigm. The countries listed in the study were thoroughly Christian, in varying forms, at one time.
The bottom line in my mind is that all nations which have been predominantly Christian at one time have similar morals. Throwing God out of the equation at this point doesn't change the fact that the way we got to this point is in part due to the ideas which Judeo-Christian culture is built on.
We could banter back and forth about key political leaders and movements, how humanistic thought influenced the culture etc...but I think it's undeniable that the whole West has been built on the Judeo-Christian backbone. Japan would even count among these considering the great changes brought about by Commodore Perry's invasive dealings resulting in the end of an isolated Japan.
Anyway, I thought it was interesting that Spain was listed as it has only been a sort-of-democracy within the last 40-50 years after Franco. They still have what we would think of as an oppressive culture, especially for women.
Sticking to my arguments I am picking apart the article from my bias, but I appreciated reading it.
Mark Plus,
Apropos communist persecution, here's an interesting link. Enjoy! (If I may say so).
Jenifer,
You wrote, "Every nation listed as a pro-evolution democracy is part of the legacy of Charlemagne to varying degrees."
True, but their modern moral character, especially with respect to the treatment of women, is part of the legacy of J.S. Mill to a very large degree. It could also be said that they are legacy of Hammurabi, Aristotle, Alexander and several Caesars to varying degrees.
Jennifer, if atheists owe there their moral standards to the christians then the christians must owe their moral standards to the pagans.
Christmas, New Years Day, Easter, Thanksgiving, democracy, public forums, written laws etc. were all born in pre-christian pagan cultures.
But this is a pointless discusson, I think, as proposing a world without religion is like proposing a world without legal ownership. Its an interresting topic but we would all be long dead before such a thing could ever come to pass.
Jennifer: besides what the others here have already said about non-Christian sources for morality, I'd just like to add two not inconsiderable factors for whatever measure of freedom we enjoy in the West: democracy and the Enlightenment. As you might know, neither of these has anything to do with the Church or the Bible, and indeed have been fought tooth and nail by organized religion in the past. And of course the lunatic fringe of monotheistic fundamentalists, Christian, Jewish, and Muslim, are still doing their best to repeal both.
Getting back to John's orginal post.
I say "no" to your gracious plan, John, because it is all smoke and mirrors. The "wall of separation" you speak of has already become a one-way barrier; the Church is not to insert itself into affairs of state, but it seems okay for the state to insert itself into affairs of faith. This imbalance is the source of the raging culture wars about marriage, life, and education we see today. It is precisely because the state is trying to enforce anti-religious beliefs. Are you proposing to cease the current infringements upon our rights? To permit Christians to speak of and share their faiths in all aspects of their lives (work and gov.) as a free people?
Likewise it is a deception to say "you can't legislate morality" when, in fact, ALL LAW either has a direct moral foundation, or is procedural in support of a moral principle. The only question is whose ethos will the law support? What are these "rights" you say religious people could argue in court? Surely not the inalienable rights given to us by our creator! No, my friend, you envision "rights" as only those that the state would grant, as determined by godless men who believe they answer to no one but themselves.
Finally, the biggest deception of your vision is that it is somehow "progressive" or "new"; that man has "evolved" to a much higher level of "enlightenment". In fact it is the oldest form of de-evolution known to man; the idea that "man can be as God", the separation of man from God, the degradation of societal morality we see today.
Sadly, we have seen impacts of the advancement of your perspective on this nation: seemingly ever-rising rates and depravity of crime, the destruction of families, "dumbing down" education, rising "unwanted" pregnancies, rates and deadliness of venereal deseases, and falling social participation, volunteerism, and charity. This is the future you would give us; much more of the same.
@ Rick
Oh please. Christians are sooo persecuted. Godless men make themselves out to be gods.... yes if you completely disregard what the term "god" means in the first place. The atheists or non religious have less representation in our government than any other group I can think of. Clearly as John's latest post has shown there is no "moral degeneration" associated with secular society.
Your comment about "dumbing down" of education is laughable. This is somehow the purview of secular society? Oh, I guess ID is much more intelligent than actual science, presumably because it has the word "intelligent" in the title.
In case you have forgotten, elected officials answer to the people. The problem is not with atheist officials (not many exist) but with religious ones who think the answer to God, rather than the people.
Hi Zilch,
As you might know, neither of these has anything to do with the Church or the Bible, and indeed have been fought tooth and nail by organized religion in the past.
I totally disagree that democracy and the Enlightenment have/had nothing to do with Christianity. As most things go in history, we usually have more information about those who maintained power and need to dig for the weaker voices.
I agree that democracy is not a Christian invention and I agree that the Enlightenment was not Christian in origin. What I'm getting at is that Judeo-Christian worldview or paradigm has been the most influencial "force" in shaping Western culture; the most advanced and successful one so far. Again, it has it's faults, but nothing is improved upon without constantly re-evaluating it's purpose and aim.
It seems to me, and I'm open to correction, that even though many thoughts from different men have promoted democratic systems, it came to fruition because of the core morals of the Judeo-Christian paradigm. If you follow the trail of who influenced whom in history I think you'll find an unbreakable chain of Judeo-Christian influence.
I am 99% convinced that the initial spark of the libery we now experience came from the knowledge of grace. Ancient cultures all had beliefs in a spiritual or "other" world, and were held captive by those beliefs. When Christians came telling people they could receive grace - and it was free - no sacrifice needed etc... the myth was broken and the people were set free from the need to appease a god or an animistic spiritual world. It was huge in our history.
That is why I believe the idea of democracy has worked within, and born from, the Judeo-Christian paradigm. Humanism is only possible after people have been set free from their fear and devotion to make believe gods. I believe this is God's risk in setting people free, we are free to live without him but still enjoy the benefits of grace... until we ruin ourselves completely by indulgence.
I don't think the Enlightenment (which certainly had/has it's serious down side) would have been possible without the Reformation. It's all intermingled. I think some of the discussions going on during the Enlightenment were helpful to the Church, but overall, I think it was a perfect example of what happens when grace is taken for granted and people forget their roots.
M. Tully,
Credit goes to many people for sure. What I wrote above is somewhat of a comment on what you said too.
Tigg13
Jennifer, if atheists owe there their moral standards to the christians then the christians must owe their moral standards to the pagans.
I don't think atheists owe their moral standards to Christians as much as the core morality of Judeo-Christian beliefs has made it possible for goodness to flourish moreso than any other. Ultimately a Christian believes it is God who puts our morality in us so that the term "morality" is not something which is imposed, but something that is an outflow of what is inside us.
This agrees with Romans 2:14-16
"For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus.
I definitely believe there are people who do not have any formal belief in God who can behave from the heart in ways that are more consistent with Jesus than a lot of people who claim to follow him.
That said, I do not think Christians owe thier morality to Pagans. Christmas, Easter, public forums etc. are not connected to morality.
But this is a pointless discusson, I think, as proposing a world without religion is like proposing a world without legal ownership. Its an interresting topic but we would all be long dead before such a thing could ever come to pass.
I agree, but it's still fun to discuss ideas. :) I don't think we will have a world without religion so much as what religions will be the majority as we experience a dramatic shift over the next decade or two. I do think it's happening.
Likewise it is a deception to say "you can't legislate morality" when, in fact, ALL LAW either has a direct moral foundation, or is procedural in support of a moral principle. The only question is whose ethos will the law support?
Spot on!
Rabid Rabbit,
You were not addressing your comment to me, but I can't resist this as a homeschooling mom:
Your comment about "dumbing down" of education is laughable.
Award winning teacher John Gatto disagrees.
rabidrabbit: "Your comment about "dumbing down" of education is laughable."
SAT scores were "recentered" (dumbed down) in 1995 to make today's dumber students appear smarter. The "recentering" added 80 points to mid-level verbal scores and 30 points to math scores, for an overall 110 point "boost" to individual V+M test scores. See here:
http://professionals.collegeboard.com/data-reports-research/sat/equivalence-tables
Does this really mean today's students are not as well educated? Consider this: when our nation was founded "The Federalist Papers" were written to be read by the average New York farm hand. They were a public relations campaign to "sell" the constitution to the lay public. Today's college students find the subject matter difficult to read or comprehend. Try for yourself. You can find them here:
http://www.law.ou.edu/ushistory/federalist/
Or look at the elementary-school reading texts of our founding fathers, such as the New England Primer here:
http://www.homeschoolacademy.com/vlibrary/ACL.htm
A little more involved than "See Spot run."
@Rick
the reason it is ridiculous is not because it isn't occurring, but that it is in any way related to atheism, or a purely secular society. That is absurd.
Jenifer,
You wrote, "I don't think the Enlightenment (which certainly had/has it's serious down side) would have been possible without the Reformation."
It could also be argued that without Christianity, the Enlightenment would have been unnecessary. Mathematics and medicine were still progressing in east and west Asia during the period. In fact the only civilizations experiencing the Dark Ages were those under Christian dominance.
But, I would like to end on high note. You also wrote, "Humanism is only possible after people have been set free from their fear and devotion to make believe gods."
If you change the word possible to "easily achievable," we would be in complete agreement.
Rick said:
Likewise it is a deception to say "you can't legislate morality" when, in fact, ALL LAW either has a direct moral foundation, or is procedural in support of a moral principle. The only question is whose ethos will the law support?
And Jennifer affirmed,
Spot on!
Isn't the more fundamental question not "Whose ethos will the law support," but "Which ethos will the law support"?
M. Tully,
It could also be argued that without Christianity, the Enlightenment would have been unnecessary. Mathematics and medicine were still progressing in east and west Asia during the period. In fact the only civilizations experiencing the Dark Ages were those under Christian dominance.
I understand you want to end this never ending conversation, but I'd like to comment on this. :)
That's true, but the eastern nations and Asia were not as affected by the fall of Rome which is what led to the dark ages. The Church did add it's own set of shackles for people by mistakenly believing "she" was put in power by God - the legacy of Constantine.
The works I've read seem to concur that the dark ages would have happened with or without Christianity because of the dynamics of a fallen empire.
Thanks for the refreshingly friendly dialogue.
Gary,
Can there be a which without a who?
I would like to point out a few things about the origins of democracy and our nation:
1) Greece is credited with the first democracy, long before the rise of Christianity. (Athenian democracy: 508 B.C., Christianity legalized in Rome: 313 ( That would be A.D. for those "Geniuses" out there.))
2) As for John Adams on Christianity:
"As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?"
..........To F.A. Van der Kamp, Dec. 27, 1816
3) Atheists are the most openly persecuted group in the United States, and how anyone could have the testicular fortitude to claim that we persecute Christians is remarkable. As well say that Black people persecuted Whites for hundreds of years. 48% of responders to a gallup poll said they would not vote for an Atheist president, vs. a 38% who would not vote for a MUSLIM. It appears that no religion is worse than the most violent religion on the world stage. Read some Sam Harris to find the PAGES of quotations ordering the death of infidels.
4)Christianity can hardly be credited with the morals of the Constitution, if we consider the morally lacking important Christians of past and present: the Spanish inquisitor, the perpetrators of pograms, the keepers of slaves, the murdering Crusaders, the demagogues who tell their flocks to kill abortion performing doctors, etc,etc, ETCETERA.
5) Communism, I believe, can hardly even be called atheistic, because it simply replaced the gods of older ages with the State. Communism itself is religious doctrine as dogmatic as any Judeo-Christian text can produce.
I only hope that times will change and that we will one day be accepted. We've come a long way since the Civil rights movement 50 odd years ago, and a black man is now in the run for President, and hell, there are less blacks (I knew a Soldier, originally from Africa, when I was in the Army, who was offended that we would use "African-American" the way we do.) than there are Religious Nonbelievers in the Nation. Maybe I will have the pleasure of voting for an Atheist in my lifetime. As long as he's not a Republican. ;)
(My apologies for the essay instead of a post.
Rick writes: 'Sadly, we have seen impacts of the advancement of your perspective on this nation: seemingly ever-rising rates and depravity of crime, the destruction of families, "dumbing down" education, rising "unwanted" pregnancies, rates and deadliness of venereal deseases, and falling social participation, volunteerism, and charity. This is the future you would give us; much more of the same.'
In the U.S., the Jesus-loving Southern states tend to have more of these social pathologies than the more secular states in the Northeast and the Upper Midwest, as reflected in the general quality of life:
Best States to Live
Jennifer asks:
Gary,
Can there be a which without a who?
In this case, no, Jennifer. Nevertheless, the which question is certainly the more important.
If you had been a voter in 1860, trying to make up your mind on the great issue of that day, would it have been sufficient to conclude that the law should support "the ethos of the Christians"? That would have been to beg the question.
Jennifer, hi.
You know, I always feel like I've won a discussion with a christian if the only thing they can do is quote the bible or their dogma.
Thank you.
Rick, hi.
You said, "The "wall of separation" you speak of has already become a one-way barrier; the Church is not to insert itself into affairs of state, but it seems okay for the state to insert itself into affairs of faith. This imbalance is the source of the raging culture wars about marriage, life, and education we see today. It is precisely because the state is trying to enforce anti-religious beliefs."
The only anti-religious belief that the state is trying to enforce is the idea that it is wrong for zealots (like you) to force your beliefs onto everybody. The cultural wars you speak of are a result of christianity attacking the state (not the other ay around) in an attempt to impose its ideology onto everybody.
And if christianity wins, the hate, intolerance, and suppression of individual rights that is inherent within christianity will replace the freedoms and liberties we've worked and fought for for over 200 years.
You also said, "Are you proposing to cease the current infringements upon our rights? To permit Christians to speak of and share their faiths in all aspects of their lives (work and gov.) as a free people?"
This has to be the stupidest thing I've read all week and I've been following the presidential campaign.
There has never been an infringement against a christian's right to speak or share their ideas in this country. Heck, you're even welcome to share them on atheist's websites!
What you are asking for is to be the only voice that gets to be heard.
Finally you said, "Sadly, we have seen impacts of the advancement of your perspective on this nation: seemingly ever-rising rates and depravity of crime, the destruction of families, "dumbing down" education, rising "unwanted" pregnancies, rates and deadliness of venereal deseases, and falling social participation, volunteerism, and charity."
How could you possibly blame all of these things on atheism when 75% of this country is christian and our government has been under the thumb of the religious right for the last 8 years?
I suppose you'ld prefer the good old days, though. When men were men and women couldn't vote. When black people knew their place and child and spousal abuses weren't seen as crimes.
Or perhaps your more of a 17th century christian, when slavery, bigotry and religious persecution were the standards of the morally upright bible thumpers.
Would our society be perfect if there were no christians mucking things up? Hardly, but with all of the problems that christianity brings, and the others that it exacerbates, things couldn't be much worse.
Gary,
I do see your point.
The 1860 example doesn't seem to fit this topic though; the north and the south both claimed to be Christian. I don't think the Confederacy was wrong in wanting to secede, but I do question their use of the word "Christian" during that time. I think the vast differences between north and south derive from who colonized each more heavily. Jamestown was colonized by gold seekers and criminals (Virginia especially) while the north began is't culture with the Puritans. There was more to it than that, I'm sure you know!, but I think these differences in world view set the tone. (Not that I would want to live in a Puritan's world!)
In 1860 I think my faith would be a huge part of my outlook about the value of individual lives. Wilbur Wilberforce acted out of his faith and was one of those involved in a chain reaction of setting things right in our nation too.
I don't see how we can separate our beliefs from our values. That's why I am curious about atheist values and vision.
Tigg13,
You're welcome; with no apologies. :)
Jennifer wrote:
The 1860 example doesn't seem to fit this topic though; the north and the south both claimed to be Christian.
Precisely my point, Jennifer. The moral debate over slavery that occurred in the years leading up to 1860 wasn't a debate between Christians and atheists -- it was largely a debate between antislavery Christians and proslavery Christians. For example, in a debate over the the question, "Ought American Slavery to be Perpetuated?", Rev. William G. Brownlow staked out his position early: slavery had "risen and spread out over the whole earth ... by and with the consent, knowledge and approbation of Almighty God!" (emphasis in original). Google has the published version of this debate online, if you care to read it.
Jennifer continues:
I don't think the Confederacy was wrong in wanting to secede, but I do question their use of the word "Christian" during that time.
I'm not sure what you mean whhn you say that you don't think that the Confederacy was wrong in wanting to secede. I certainly don't quarrel with self-assessment of the vast majority of Confederates that they were Christians. The national motto of the Confederacy was "Deo Vindice" -- "With God Our Vindicator" (perhaps not coincidentally, the motto "In God We Trust" first appeared on U.S. coinage in 1863). The Confederates also remedied a "defect" in the constitution of the United States by "invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God" in the preamble to their own constitution. Confederate Lieutenant General Leonidas Polk's pre-war occupation was Episcopal Bishop of Louisiana. Robert E. Lee's chief of artillery, Brigadier General William Nelson Pendleton, was rector of Grace Chirch in Lexington, Virginia, both before and after the war. Stonewall Jackson was a notoriously devout Presbyterian. Why do you question their use of the word "Christian"?
Jennifer further continues:
I think the vast differences between north and south derive from who colonized each more heavily.
The only difference between North and South that fundamentally mattered was that the Northern economy was built on free labor, while the Southern economy was largely built on slave labor.
Jennifer,
You are absolutely right that I'm trying to end this conversation, but there is just one more comment:)
You wrote, "The works I've read seem to concur that the dark ages would have happened with or without Christianity because of the dynamics of a fallen empire."
A collapse of the standing order would, without a doubt, have caused a high degree of chaos. But, a thousand years of intellectual vacuum? That had to be a concentrated effort. And the only concentrating force of ideas available in Europe at the time would have been...?
I have also enjoyed the discussion and if you post a reply, I promise to give you the last word.
Marx was not responsible for the dictatorships commonly attributed to his work. He was misinterpreted by Stalin and others.
M. Tully,
I've not been able to respond until now, but I would like to present a couple more points for everyone to consider in regard the the Dark Ages of Europe.
*Byzantium did continue to grow and advance in several areas of education because they had access to what was already recorded. They protected their information.
*Most "advancements" made in the East during the Middle Ages were not new ideas so much as copying and continuing the work of others, because they recorded their information - the legacy of the Hellenistic period when a rudimentary form of the scientific method was already being used.
*It was the monks in the monasteries of Ireland who painstakingly copied with complete accuracy, most of the works which we enjoy today. They literally snatched writings from fires to copy them. There was some copying going on in some Arab areas as well, but not the writings of the Roman Republic or Empire eras.
We might not know who Plato or Archimedes were if not for the monks - Roman Catholic monks.
*The Roman Catholic Church did oppress people and use God as an excuse for wielding power and collecting taxes. Every system man makes ends up using various means to the same end. The East was just under just as much religious influence as the West - the only difference being one "side" was trying to recover from a massive crash of society as they knew it in order to break apart into many smaller societies, and the other was separated by land barriers and culture to such a degree that no attempt was even begun to unite them all.
There is so much to say on this subject, so many factors influencing events. The Church did try to keep learning in line with their own paradigm, but so did every other culture.
By the way, I think a world without religion would be nice to. After reading the Bible for 21 years now, I'm pretty sure it was never God's idea to institute a religion. If anything, the message of the whole Bible is to not have any religion, but a relationship with the creator.
It seems that most of you who fear an atheist government believe that Christianity was responsible for our civil society. One even suggested that it somehow improved Japan.
I lived in Thailand for over three years and still remember the warmth of the people. They were mostly law-abiding and neighborly. Their society is as good as any I've seen. In fact, I don't remember seeing any homeless people. But that was many years ago.
The point is: I never met a single Thai Christian, and I don't believe Thailand was influenced by Christianity. They are free to convert, but I think they just don't see the need.
Post a Comment