Theistic and atheistic influences on society

[modest]

I don't think you understand what you are saying.

''The larger point is that our founding fathers rejected those teachings and wrote our codes and laws and documents using a philosophy which was in stark contrast to the teachings of Judaism and Christianity''

 

I'm talking morality, societal rules to live by, mores. What are you talking about? Give me an instance where any founding father rejected any Judeo-Christian morality? Explain this ''stark contrast'' of which you speak?

 

Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God;

 

-Thomas Jefferson

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?

 

-John Adams

 

But, to answer you question more to the point... Many of the founding fathers were educated in the Greek classics. Someone like John Adams would have read Homer's Iliad and Odyssey many times and taken away what morality there was.

 

There was also deism as Inow points out. In fact, there was a multitude of religions amongst the founding fathers. Quakers and Puritans and Protestants of different sorts had different ideas of religious morality. One common sentiment among the founding fathers is that government should not be built on religion.

 

What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not.

 

-James Madison

 

Only if you don't comprehend the argument actually being made. If religion is the source of morals, then atheists and non-theists (even people who never practiced religion) wouldn't have them, yet they do.

 

I think this is fair. Questor seems not only to be saying that religion saturates society with morality, but that morality is completely defined by religion. I don't think that's a tenable position.

 

~modest

[questor]

Here is one persons opinion:

'' Where Do Our Laws Come From?

by Greg Leitschuh

 

Have you ever wondered where your conscience comes from? What about this sense of right and wrong within each of us? Where did that originate? Most of us would agree that inside us there is will and a conscience that governs our lives and gives us personality. Furthermore we would admit that in our conscience there is a deep sense of "I oughtness" that tells us to do this or not to do that. Where does this quiet inner voice come from? Is it the product of matter, plus time, plus chance as many evolutionists would have us believe or does it come from a source or power outside ourselves? What role does education play in our moral development?

 

Last month I wrote about the problem facing educators in setting up moral standards for schools and some of the questions that were raised. In this issue I would like us to take a deeper look at finding the source of where our laws come from. Have they evolved socially over the centuries, as an accumulation of men's ideas, or do they originate from a source that is outside of our world? What are the implications of these views? Moreover, I would like us to seriously examine whether or not our "social conditioning" has any effect on the moral behaviour of society.

 

The Moral Code

 

Many sociologists and educators have for years believed that if we can educate ourselves properly we then will be able to live lives that are in keeping with the moral precepts accepted by most societies. In a sense they are saying "if we know, we are therefore able to do". Innocence only needs to be educated. They are assuming there is a moral code of right and wrong that everyone will agree upon if they know of it. Does this not beg the question, "who ultimately decides on what is right or wrong and where does this ethical code come from? For a law to be binding, it must not make itself weak for the weak and take into account our shortcomings, heredity and upbringing. It demands that we fulfil it completely. If this were not the case, all moral and civil law would not work. The final standard of authority is one that can be owned and recognised by all men.

 

"I Oughtness"

 

Have you ever wondered where our laws come from? What about this feeling of "I oughtness" that is within each of us that we call our conscience? Each of us has an imperative something within that makes us say "I ought". Even in the most degraded specimens of humanity this inner voice of conscience is there. Who or what caused it to be there? Is it merely the result of an accidental coming together of atoms billions of years ago which many evolutionists put forward as the beginning of our universe and life as we know it? If so, we are then forced to conclude that there is no real basis for morality and goodness. Aristotle said that without absolutes, there can be no morals. Jean Paul Sartre, the late French playwright, epitomises this when he said that "it makes little difference whether you help an old lady cross the road or run her over with your car". As we see an increased blurring of moral absolutes, it does not surprise us why there is a growing confusion as to what is right and wrong. The final standard of law must be one that can be owned by all mankind. Is there another explanation as to where this inner voice of conscience or moral law comes from?

 

"An Infinite Reference Point"

 

Last month I quoted a philosopher who once said "Every finite reference point must have an infinite reference point for there to be meaning in life". This finite reference point or "inner light" is what Socrates says is "an un-get-at-able, indefinable spirit". This "conscience" is what tells a person what is right or wrong and must originate from an infinite reference point in order for law and morality to have meaning. The Bible gives us a definite clue as to what this infinite reference point is. It is not an impersonal accidental collision of atoms in a matter, plus, time, plus chance happening aeons ago but comes to us from a Personal Being who is the author of everything that exists. There has to be a foundation stone or source outside ourselves for our laws and morality to have substance or they are meaningless. The moral conduct and laws mentioned in the Bible with the ten commandments given to Moses as well as Jesus' sermon on the mount, are the basis for most of societies' ethical code and what we regard as the standard we would like to see people live by.

 

Whether we realise it or not, the values we esteem to be the highest appear to come from within us rather than from our education or background. The Bible gives a reasonable explanation as to where this conscience or "inner man" originated. If we choose to ignore the Biblical explanation, we are left with little to stand on.

Link: Laws

[questor]

Here is another view.

Wikipedia: Judeo-Christian

Judeo-Christian (or Judaeo-Christian, sometimes written as Judæo-Christian) is a term used to describe the body of concepts and values which are thought to be held in common by Judaism and Christianity, and typically considered (sometimes along with classical Greco-Roman civilization) a fundamental basis for Western legal codes and moral values. In particular, the term refers to the common Old Testament/Tanakh (which is a basis of both moral traditions, including particularly the Ten Commandments); and implies a common set of values present in the modern Western World.

You can trace the discussion of the interdependence of religion and morals

back to Plato and before. How is it possible for young children to be raised in a society permeated by religion with parents telling them certain things are good or bad and not be influenced by religion? As one gets older, they may form personal interpretations of the the way the world works and shy away from their early teachings. What type religion was practiced by the parents of the Deist writers of the Constitution? Do you think as children they were not exposed to religious teachings?

[freeztar]

I am speaking to the fact you deny the centuries of societal interaction that produced societal values and morals that we live by.

 

Please point out where I have stated this.

 

I don't know why you persist in calling them Christian morals when societies all over the world exhibit essentially the same ideals.

 

Are you confusing me with InfiniteNow perhaps?

 

The fact you were exposed to religion ( as were your parents) at an early age shows how your developing brain was impressed with what you call ''common sense''. Just because you reject religion now doesn't mean you didn't learn from it.

 

Of course I learned from religion and of course religion has influenced society over the ages. I think that religion was very important in this aspect early on, but is less and less relevant as we move forward.

 

For example: "Thou shalt not kill". That to me is common sense and you don't have to be a person of theism to acknowledge that. :(

 

This was a useful lesson in morality back when people slaughtered people at will because there were no repercussions. Religion (specifically Christianity) provided the ultimate repercussion, eternal damnation. This "moral law" has become common sense in today's world, to nearly everyone, regardless of their personal views on religion/God(s). The repercussions of not following this "moral law" are now handled by courts and society at large.

[pgrmdave]

Keep in mind that questor has already said this:

 

Atheism in itself is not bad, atheism that disallows others the free practice of their religion is coercion. I am not a worshipper of a diety, but I think law abiding people enjoy this right under the constitution.

 

Which I think sums up my position rather nicely as well. I think that some atheists (not most by a long shot) seem to want our society to be entirely secular, with no signs of religion outside of churches or private homes. To me, this is an unreasonable desire, just as unreasonable as wanting people to be forced to be any religion.

 

Twice at my high school they offered a time and a place where people could go an pray during class. As far as I know, it was non-denominational, though definitely Christian (my area is, like most areas of the US, dominated by Christians over other religious groups). The first time was because a popular girl who had just recently graduated died in a car accident, and the second time was because of 9/11 (being from NJ, it had a VERY personal effect on many of us. I was lucky and only knew people who knew people who's parent/friend/family member was killed). Both times people reported feeling better emotionally, and better able to continue on with schooling.

 

Now, this likely violated the separation of church and state. But I do not believe it violated anybody's rights - nobody was forced to partake. Furthermore, it helped a lot of people deal with tragic events, and I do believe that the school has a responsibility in those types of instances to take care of the well-being of its students.

 

 

 

Now, questor also says this:

I have never heard of atheists as a group doing anything altruistic...no atheist sponsored rallies for the troops,

no atheist visits to the ill, no atheist rallies to fight cancer, no atheist

scholarship funds, etc.

Here are some links:

 

Scholarships:

Scholarship

Home

College Scholarships for Students who are Atheists and Freethinkers

Scholarships and Essay Contests for Secular Students | Secular Student Alliance: Atheists, Humanists, Agnostics & Others

 

Atheists for our troops (actually, atheist troops for our troops):

Atheists in Foxholes - Event Speeches

 

 

I don't have enough time to do much more research, but you are correct in that atheists are less organized than organized religion. However, I disagree with the implied conclusion that they are less compassionate.

[modest]

I think that some atheists (not most by a long shot) seem to want our society to be entirely secular, with no signs of religion outside of churches or private homes. To me, this is an unreasonable desire, just as unreasonable as wanting people to be forced to be any religion.

 

A good example of this is China and their occasional crack-down on religious groups. While the US and most western countries are content to allow religious expression of nearly any sort (so long as it isn't hurting people and isn't instituted by the state), China is far more likely to consider organized religion a threat.

 

Falun Gong is kind of like an Eastern equivalent of Scientology. It's interesting to juxtapose the Chinese government's response to Falun Gong with the United States government's response to Scientology. In the US, the church of Scientology is given every opportunity to gather and worship (or whatever it is they do) as they see fit. They can organize, petition, buy land, etc.

 

The People's Republic has forbidden Falun Gong - no doubt because some 10,000 followers silently protested in front of Communist party headquarters in 1999. There are reports of torture and imprisonment of members after that, and it is now completely illegal to practice Falun Gong in China. Of course, the reason China does this is fear. They don't want a revolution, and any group capable of organizing thousands of people is a potential revolution - especially when they have publicly protested.

 

China's fear is not exactly unfounded. There's a history of religiously-led revolution in China. But, this is not the case in the US. In the US, 250 thousand people can march on Washington, stand in front of the Lincoln Memorial, and listen to a Baptist minister rail against unfair practices of the US government. They are not rounded up, imprisoned, tortured. Baptist churches aren't outlawed.

 

I think the Western approach of "separation of church and state" + "freedom from religious persecution" works. I think this is the balance that allows the Western system to work. When you start messing with one or the other you have problems. Atheists, of course, want to keep religion out of government. And, religious folk want freedom to practice their religion. By and large, I do not see atheists trying to disenfranchise religion from their right to worship. And, I don't see religion trying to take over government. That is the balance we need to keep.

 

When a chief justice in Alabama wants to put a 5,300-pound monument to the 10 commandments in the state supreme court building, he is playing with that balance, and it is not wrong for atheists (or anyone else) to say "cut that crap out". When Muslim girls are told they can't wear their veil in school or some other kids are told they can't form a prayer group or some other such nonsense then somebody needs to tell that principle or that teacher to cut that crap out.

 

These are my personal feelings on the topic.

 

~modest

[freeztar]

Which I think sums up my position rather nicely as well. I think that some atheists (not most by a long shot) seem to want our society to be entirely secular, with no signs of religion outside of churches or private homes. To me, this is an unreasonable desire, just as unreasonable as wanting people to be forced to be any religion.

 

I agree for the most part. People should have the freedom to express their speech/assembly/beliefs freely as long as it doesn't do any harm. Nonetheless, I think that the government should remain without a favorite religion.

 

Now, this likely violated the separation of church and state. But I do not believe it violated anybody's rights - nobody was forced to partake. Furthermore, it helped a lot of people deal with tragic events, and I do believe that the school has a responsibility in those types of instances to take care of the well-being of its students.

 

I had the same thing at my highschool, but not related to tragedies per se. At the time I was there (1993-1996), there was some controversy over this in my state/county. I don't remember exactly when, but we started having "silent time" right after morning announcements. My high school had fought to have prayer time first thing in the morning, saying that it would not be mandatory. Instead, we ended up with "silent time". So, during this time, most people would bow their heads and pray. This was fine with me except that any talking or violation of silence was seen as subordinate and subject to detention. Fortunately, my homeroom teacher was not only one of the most laid back in the school, she was also the typing/programming teacher which meant that our homeroom was the computer lab! :) I was allowed to type on the keyboard and talk quietly with my neighbor, while some of my friends in different homerooms were not so lucky.

Imho, the whole "silent time" was a (tip of the scale) guise at enforcing prayer time in a public school. To be honest though, it only ever bothered me on a philosophical level. I was otherwise uninhibited by it.

[InfiniteNow]

I don't know why you persist in calling them Christian morals when societies all over the world exhibit essentially the same ideals.

 

Nice try, questor. It was YOU who referred to them as such... I refer you now to your post #12:

 

I said Judo-Christian principles.

 

 

Oh... wait. No. That's not it at all. Silly me. You did in post #6, and you were only clarying that in post #12. From post #6:

 

This country was founded on Judeo-Christian morality which is the basis of our laws and which you and all of us use every day.

 

Gosh. I'm such a dumbass. I even responded to that already myself in post #10. Yep. That's right. Here it was (comments from links removed to save space):

 

Actually, no. It was not. Your comment above, although a common misunderstanding, is not accurate.

 

 

The Christian Nation Myth

 

The Founding Fathers' Religious Wisdom

 

Religion and the Founding Fathers

 

 

Are you beginning to understand why you're not taken seriously? :)

[HydrogenBond]

We need to differentiate between the definitions of theists and atheists. Can an atheist be someone who had religious training as a youth, or at one time, and decided to change into an atheist. Or is the definition of an atheist someone who has never had any religious training and therefore sort of a pure bred?

 

This is important because often things attributed to theism would not be valid under the first definition. For example, sometimes Hilter is associated with his religious upbringing, while as an adult he acted without the spirit of this training, more like someone who had shed it to become atheist. If the second definition is valid, does that mean that people, who had any religious training, claiming to be atheists are really closet theists. We need to firm this up so we don't attribute the wrong data to each side. Stalin may have had religious training when young but became an atheists and made religion illegal. Does this make him a theist, atheist or closet theist?

 

The closet theist is an interest affect. It is theist on the inside and atheist on the outside. The personality dynamics is analogous to behavior which forms in childhood and extends through life. What changes is the surface expression. The class clown from first grade may retain that personality but go from fart jokes to something more mature. In the case of the closet theists there mind or behavior has almost a religious structure that is outwardly flavored with an atheist orientation. Hitler may have been one such example. He labelled himself with a title analogous to emperor like Caesar who was also seen as a god. He used the 1000 year Reich, which was a humanized version modeled on the 1000 year reign of prophesies. The basic religious structure remained by it was flavored with a atheist attitude there is no god is higher than me.

 

But in a good sense a closet theist would use the basic structure of religious morality and try to modernize it to the times. He may be unconscious of his inner nature and assume it was created by the outer expression.

[InfiniteNow]

Ah yes... The atheist/Hitler/Stalin association which as been debunked time and time again. Get some new material, will ya?

[HydrogenBond]

Say I had been a republican and switched to a democrat, does than make me a democrat or republican? The final choice would be my association. Say I called myself a republican but believe in all the democrat principle. Is my label as a republican what defines me, or is it my beliefs? Objectively, a tree is judged by the fruit it bears. I can call an apple tree a peach tree, but if we deal with reality we know it is an apple tree no matter what you call it. We can spin this but that is based on subjectivity and not objectivity. That is why we need to define both using objectivity and not subjectivity.

 

If we go back to Stalin he wanted to get rid of religion. If an atheist had their way they would do the same thing. We hear all the time how religion is so retro and has little use. The difference is they would try to do it in a more peaceful way, which may be the closet theist.

[questor]

America has been called the most religious country in the world. We also are and have been the most successful country in the world for the last 100 or so years. What are the negatives against religion in this country? How has it hurt us? It doesn't seem to have hurt our progress, exactly what do the atheists fear from religion? Do secular countries have some type advantage

over us? Why would you not want to live in a religious society?

[InfiniteNow]

America has been called the most religious country in the world.

 

And I've been called the greatest lover ever. That doesn't mean it's true.

[Moontanman]

And I've been called the greatest lover ever. That doesn't mean it's true.

 

Hey, I've been told the same thing! One of us must be wrong!

[HydrogenBond]

One fundament difference between theists and atheists is the theists believes in some form of perpetuation of the self, such as afterlife or even reincarnation. The atheists has life ending at physical death. I am not saying which is true, just faith in either option, sets a certain time parameter in the mind. This affects how you budget yourself in time.

 

If life ends at physical death one plans their life to last say 80 years. If one sees it extending beyond that, they need to plan longer term. This is easier to see if we us use the analogy of a football game. The atheist only has to play one half while the theist has two halves to play. The atheist can play harder and use all their trick plays in the first half. While the theists needs to conserve energy and save some trick plays for second half. The approach to the game of life needs to be different for each since the time parameters are different.

 

Along with this death limit are two different fundamental emotions in the brain. If we work under the assumption life ends at physical death there is more base fear of death then if one lives beyond the death of the body. The analogy is having the same project. The atheist has a shorter "deadline" creating more base stress. To release this fear and stress you need more options. With the longer "deadline", you can float a little easier or set a pace that is more relaxing. You may even try to inhibit the players of life from using too much energy in the first half.

 

Relative to the influence of each on society the theists is often more conservative. Their is a conservation dynamics because the game of life is longer. The atheist is more stressed and is geared toward less conservation, in relative terms. The atheists have to figure out ways to cut corners and try new things to speed up the process since their "deadline" is shorter.

 

The atheists sees the theists as wasting their time believing in myths and fairy tales. The theist is not seen as being very rational or practical. This has a grain of truth. However, the theists has a longer time element so they are in no big hurry. The theist may not see why the atheists are so stressed willing to center themselves in the ego. This is the most efficient way with a shorter "deadline".

[questor]

Why would I want to be an atheist? Is there some advantage in not believing

in a supreme being? Would I have insight others do not possess? Is it better so I don't have to attend church or mingle with a large number of friends after church? Maybe it's so I don't have to be buried with a preacher of some sort saying nice things about me? I have tried the agnostic and atheist path, and I can't see the advantages. Maybe someone could clue me in on why it's

the best way to go.

[HydrogenBond]

There is another side to this. It is more common to Christianity and has to do with the concept of hell. If you compare just reaching 80 and the body dies to reaching 80 to the idea the body dies and you go into eternal torture in hell, the stress level is even higher with hell. The contrast in this case are the atheists will only play one half of the game but the fearful of hell only have one quarter to play.

 

This can create paralysis to life or excessive compulsion. This appears to be the area where atheists are more relaxed in comparison to their "deadline" since their vision of death is easier. For such people, things needs to happen fast to meet this "deadline" not just for the individual but also for the group, leading to irrational judgements. It is possible most of the atrocities by religion occur when the "deadline" enters the range between atheist death and the extreme timeline of hell. The prophesies of each generation usually reduce the timescale from a normal lifetime to very short; end is near.

 

One way to see this is plot the two. The atheist has a plot from 0 to 80. The hell fire has a plot from 0 to infinity, with the mortal life looking like a short time on this plot, when one constantly fixates on the scaling factor of hell. At that point people will do, and be made to do, anything to get rid of hell, even if the behavior is hellish, as long as someone convinces them this is their salvation. If you kill a witch it buys you brownie points. If you are a terrorist and kill innocent people Allah will reward you with virgins.