Lance
Josh Adams
fooser
davenate
Mike O
Reading on Walden Bookstore
goesdownbitter
jack3566
Garnet SpyROUND ONE. RESPONSE ONE. FIVE QUESTIONS
Brian: Yesterday, we here at the Political Inquirer began a debate between “M” of the group blog Atheism is Dead and Leo Pardus of the group blog de-conversion. “M” is representing Theism in general, even though he currently is a professing Christian from the Eastern Orthodox tradition. Leo is representing Atheism. The first post (which you can read here) introduced our two debaters. Today we launch into our first round of questions.
There is something very important about the nature of this debate that must be taken into consideration: we are not asking our debaters to defend the “truth” of their position, but the pragmatics of it. For some this may be irrelevant, but since this is a politics and society blog we believe that it is the best fit for what we are trying to do here at the Political Inquirer. Readers, if you would like to push our debaters to discuss topics not related to the main debate feel free to leave a comment. Let us begin the first round:
Question one is this: “Can you please explain why you believe that Theism is beneficial or detrimental/dangerous to society in general? Leo, since “M” when first last time, you can begin today. Give us your summary.
LEO: I am quite convinced that Theism, in its myriad forms, has been a benefit and a detriment to human society. Let me provide a few examples on both sides:
Benefits
1. Oberlin, Harvard, and Princeton are just a few of the top schools founded, funded, and headed by Christians, and with Christian ideals.
2. Churches have funded and founded many health care establishments.
3. Many churches are truly marvelous at caring for their members.
4. The Christian faith has inspired beautiful works of art, classics of literature, glorious music, and majestic prodigies of architecture.
Detriments
1. Religion has been the caused of many wars, pogroms. et cetra.
2. Religious leaders have been known to justify murder of the grounds of blasphemy.
3. There have been plenty of instances of ill people ceasing to take medication prescribed to them by doctors, and dying as a result. Some Theist have died because they refused blood transfusions on religious grounds.
4. Religious believers have been known to ostracize, and in some cases even murder, their children rather than allow them to become atheist or marry someone from a different religion.
5. Religious motivations have been behind the destruction of many works of art, book, and so forth.
Let’s face it: Theism is just too big and too varied to condemn or venerate en masse. Even narrowed down to Christianity, Islam, et cetra. It’s just too big for blanket praise or condemnation.
For me, I can only look at individuals, and sometimes tightly described circumscribed groups, and assess them based on principles of basic, human decency. Principles like: Do they help people in need? Do they follow the maxim of, “first do no harm”? Do they try to live the “Golden Rule”? Can they allow others to believe something different without condemning or attacking them (i.e. Evangelism is fine; sword-point evangelism is not). Any Theist or Theistic group that lives by such principles is probably beneficial. Any Theist or Theistic group that does not, we can all probably do without.
BRIAN: Thank you for your response. “M”, same question.
“M”: I believe that Theism–the belief that there is a personal, transcendent, omni-characteristic Deity–is ultimately a benefit for society. I believe that this concept allows human beings to construct foundational truths about morality, rationality, government, human nature, and it also gives people objective purpose and motivation. I do not believe that Theism is a detriment to society; rather I believe that willful ignorance is a detriment to society, in so much as those that display this sort of character only wish to follow their own desires and warp certain beliefs to those desires. I do not believe that beliefs have control over people–somewhat like the concept of a parasite “meme”–rather, that many people choose what they wish to believe based on the desires that they have (whether good or bad).
And while I may believe that people are subjective about what they consider to be true, I do not believe that truth is subjective. I do believe that there are objective methods to finding truth and that there are such things as objective good and evil. Simply put: human beings will do with themselves as they will.
BRIAN: Thank you “M”. “M” here is the second question, “Is it possible for someone from a Theistic worldview to pragmatically uphold the concept of the separation of religion and state?”
“M”: Yes, it is possible. Some specific forms of Theism even argue for the separation of religion from government. For instance, early Christians during the medieval synthesis of Greek thought and Christianity, known as the period of Scholasticism, began the very concept of tolerantia (now known as tolerance, obviously) during a time when Church and State were not separate, which may shock some people to know.
Even Muslim theologians later took on this concept when interpreting the Qu’ran and develop their nations by it. Do I believe that religion should be entirely excluded from the State, and vice-versa? No. I also believe that theocratic governments can be just as tolerant and non-theocratic governments and that both can be equally tyrannical.
A society can have a theocratic system without having to impose all its regulations on non-believing citizens. There is also a point where a society need not be tolerant of all sorts of actions: child sacrifice and cannibalism are two examples of foreign cultural practices that need not be adopted.
BRIAN: Leo, your turn.
LEO: Yes, it is. Of course, whether any given Theist would do well at this depends upon their particular theology and upon their interpretation of “separation of religion and state”. A Theist who thinks the country ought to be run by “Bible/Qu’ran/Dialects/Et Cetra” is certainly not going to do a good job of upholding separation, nor would someone who insists that “separation of religion and state” is not a constitutional concept.
On the other hand, a Theist who looks to his faith as a guide to decency and morality, and who recognizes plurality and religious freedom as good and necessary, could do a fine job balancing personal faith and public services.
BRIAN: Leo, on the same note, “Is it necessary in a society like the United States, which is both religious in nature and pluralistic in practice, for a politician to reflect these values? OR put another way: do Theist make better political representatives in America because they best represent the views of the American public?”
LEO: I don’t know that it is necessary, but it is a nice benefit if a politician can at least acknowledge and value plurality and the place of religion in a country. And it is necessary for political bodies (e.g. Congress) to reflect the society they represent. Failure of representation is the sort of thing that leads to civil unrest and even rebellion.
As regards who makes better representatives, I don’t think any individual can be a really good representative of a pluralistic society. The best an individual can do in that vein is to safeguard freedom and plurality of religion, opinion, et cetra. But in the larger picture, many representatives, of varying religions, can represent a pluralistic society. So I am all in favor of Theist in Congress. And I wouldn’t mind seeing a few Atheist/Agnostics in there as well. A pluralistic society needs a pluralistic government.
BRIAN: Well put, Leo. “M”, your response?
“M”: I think it is necessary for two reasons: (1) Theist are better politicians in this scenario because they understand and represent the majority that they help guide and rule. (2) Theist have a better understanding of “absolutes” and the foundation for laws.
Now, many may ask me why I believe that an Atheist is not as good in this position. Though it may appear that I am contradicting myself, I believe that an Atheist can make just-as-good a politician as any Theist as regards to moral quality as well as how one leads the country. Why do I not consider this to be a contradiction? Because I believe that an Atheist can only do so if they have been raised in a Theistic society where they have been culturally conditioned with such beliefs to begin with, such as absolute moral laws, objective purpose, et cetra. I do not believe that a purely Atheistic society, which has never been influences by Theism, can provide these foundational benefits.
BRIAN:Thank you “M”. That was very Vox Day-ish. Our fourth question is this, “Does Theism eventually lead to good or bad foreign policy? Does the common bond of belief in a god or gods make foreign policy better or worse? Or is Theism dangerous to foreign policy because it could cause conflict between, for example, a predominately Christian country and a predominately Islamic country?” Back to you “M”.
“M”: I think that Theism, in general, is no problem at all. I believe that people who share common ground can certainly find solutions at a faster rate, if not an easier one. As I stated before, I think people and their willful ignorance are the true dangers to the world.
Brian: Leo?
Leo: An understanding of the beliefs in other lands is indispensable to good foreign policy. So if one’s faith fosters a respect and an appreciation for the beliefs and practices of others, that should be a good thing for international relations. Conversely, if one’s personal theology is superior-istic, or condescending toward other faiths, and that faith largely informs one’s foreign policy, then that foreign policy is going to have nothing but headaches and fire fights.
BRIAN: Final question:Let me present a hypothetical situation: Let us say that one-hundred years fron now the idea of god has faded away regarding the thinking and practice of the American people. What does this society look like? Does it reflect progress, digress, chaos, or something else? Give me your picture of a post-god American society. Leo, you go first.
Leo: This is really tough; such futuristic scenarios are usually the purview of science fiction writers.
I think the only way to even approach this is to look at other societies that have already gone a ways down that road. France, Denmark, Holland, and Sweden all have long, full, “Christian” pasts, and all of them now have very low church attendance and a low percentage of believers (according to surveys). How do they look?
France, Denmark, and Sweden have a substantial welfare system and centralized health care. Personal health measures are generally good in all four above-mentioned countries. Life expectancy, personal wealth, and home ownership are high in all four. Denmark and Sweden have quite low crime rates. Holland and France have slightly higher, though still low, crime rates. Teenage sexual activity is variously reported, but seems to run no higher than the United States. The number of teenage abortions per 1000 is low in all four countries and lower than the US.
To be sure, there are many parameters to look at in attempting to assess other countries and compare them to the US. But it’s really not possible to make the case that the more “godless” countries are in a moral freefall or otherwise descending into chaos.
I don’t really know what a “post-Christian” US would look like. No one does. But based on the history of other modern nations that appear to be a good deal further down the “post-Christian” road, I am quite comfortable that the visions of dystopia held out by some are not likely at all to come to pass. By the same token, the visions of utopia held out by others are equally unrealistic.
BRIAN: Very well-said. Thank you Leo for your participation and we look forward to hearing more from you in round two as well as in the comments section below if you do decide to participate there. “M”, final word.
“M”: This is a very heavy question that requires a very heavy answer. I will try to summarize it here: I believe that a godless society, with no prior influence of Theism, and no acceptance of the idea cannot survive. I believe that such a society reflects digress and ultimately chaos that will lead to self-destruction. Why do I believe this?
I believe this because a godless society cannot justify any of the foundational truths that Theism provides, nor can it leech from other Theisticsocieties (presuming there are not at the time) for those truths. We have never truly seen a godless society before, but we have seen what self-proclaimed Atheisticsocietieshave led to, such as the adoption of pseudo-religious dogmas and rituals for the sake of ordering the masses (SovietUnion). We have also seen what the total annihilation of religion can do to society, such as during portions of the French Revolution and many of the WWII and post-war Atheistic States.
BRIAN:That is all for round one. Thank you “M”, thank you again Leo. We will hear from both of you again next Thursday and Friday right here at PoliticalInquirer.com. Until next week, readers, please leave comments and let the discussion continue.
Filed under: Culture, Philosophy, Politics, Religion | Tagged: "M", Atheism, Atheism is Dead, de-conversion, Leo Pardus, PoliticalInquirer.com, Theism
[...] Round One: Five Questions and Responses [...]
http://invitationtotruth.wordpress.com
Maybe this will help.
try investment in indonesia
http://www.inter-metrofund.com/?id=fendyedsp
Leo,
Um…but separation of church and state is in no way a constitutional concept. The phrase came from one of Jefferson’s letters to some Baptists, and his use of the ‘wall of separation’ was opposite of what most who use the phrase mean - he guaranteed the state would not be interfering in their religion, where the phrase is used these days to explain why you can’t pray over the intercom at school, etc.
What made you think it was a constitutional concept? Where in the constitution does it come close to mentioning this issue?
Josh Adams,
The letter was to the Danbury Baptist Church in response their concern that a national church was to be established. Historically that does appear to be the first incidence of the exact phrase. Madison used similar phraseology. There have been a number of cases over the years that have upheld various aspects of the idea of separation.
If you like we can dissect the application of the establishment clause and the free exercise clause. It is usually the position of those on the strong, religious right of the US spectrum to hold that the free exercise clause implies absolute and unlimited freedom of exercise. This of course falls flat in light of reasonable consideration and understanding of that clause and other “free” clauses (such as freedom of speech).
The short of it is that the Constitution sets limits on government encroachment into religion and at the same time limits religious encroachment in government. You can call it a wall, a hedge, a hurdle, a line, a limit, traffic control if you like. And if you don’t want to use the word “separation”, you can use “limited encroachment”, or “restricted overlap”, or what have you.
There are limits and restrictions. If you want to argue the terms “separation” or “wall”, that’s your bailiwick. The concept remains.
I’m not sure how to do this respectfully, so please take for granted that I intend no disrespect and bear no ill will:
Did M really answer the fifth question? It sort of seemed to me that starting with, “I believe that a godless society, with no prior influence of Theism, and no acceptance of the idea cannot survive”, presented conditions that are in a direct contradiction to the premise of the question, in that Brian asked about a society that WOULD have had a prior influence of Theism (at least that’s how I took it).
Thanks in advance for any response to this, because I’m genuinely confused.
Chris,
Hadn’t really noted that before, but I think you’re right. M seems a very cool guy, so I’m sure he’ll pipe in on this when he gets a chance.
Chris,
You are correct. I didn’t know how else to answer that question, because I honestly don’t believe that there ever has been a purely godless society.
I think that the society we may see in the future will get worse, but I feel that these things go up and down. So, for instance, it may become really godless and then go back to being extremely religious.
I just wanted to really clarify where I was going with my views. I suppose I may have digressed a bit there, but I didn’t just want to say “yes, it will be absolutely horrible etc.”
Oh, and thanks Leo. I look forward to this debate and I hope to speak with you as well in the future.
M,
Thanks for clarifying. I still have a bone to pick with you, though:
“I believe this because a godless society cannot justify any of the foundational truths that Theism provides,…”
I think many atheists would reply with something mildly spiteful to the effect of, “Well, I guess we’ll just have to convince people that being ‘good’ is simply the right thing to do WITHOUT giving them the choice between eternal punishment or eternal bliss based on their actions.”
While I for one see merit in this point, I’m sure you’ve heard it and debated it already and would like to go a little further. Undoubtedly you disbelieve that the “typical atheist response” I just presented stands a chance of success as an applied tactic. While I admit that it would be tough, I have to wonder whether or not feeling that it is impossible requires one to believe that human beings are inherently “evil”. My question for you (or anyone who chooses to address it) is this: How do you reconcile such a belief with a corresponding belief that man was created by an all knowing, all powerful, benevolent God (and in his image, no less!)?
Keep in mind that I base this question on the following premise: An omniscient, benevolent God would not create something he knew would be (or later become) evil.
As a side note, I’d just like to wonder aloud how a being could be both all powerful and all knowing. If one truly KNOWS something, it is set in stone, and unchangeable. This to me says that if there is a God, he either does not know what is to come or is powerless to stop it. This would prevent him from being either omniscient or omnipotent (respectively).
Again, thanks in advance for any response.
Chris,
Thank you for your response and your question. I wish to address the first comment you make:
<<>>
And how would one do that? I usually hear or see Atheists argue that they are “doing good because it’s good”, but this makes no sense. I don’t believe there ever to be a non-reason for doing something. For instance, if someone were to ask me “why do you do good?” I would tell them, “Because it’s right”.
But within the Atheists universe, what constitutes as “right”? I usually hear or see Atheists argue that what is right is what we are genetically programmed to do in the sense of keeping our species alive. So basically, we do what we are programmed so for the sake of survival. Now, while I see SOME merit in this response I don’t think it’s adequate by itself. You seem to believe that it is petty that a Theist would follow something to be “good” just because of the rewards or punishments of the afterlife, but both the Atheist and the Theist do good for the reward or punishment. As an Atheist, you may justify the “good” on the basis that it keeps your species alive and because you are genetically programmed to do so…and because it makes you feel good. These are all selfish reasons that give meaning to what is “good”. In the same light, you may do good because you don’t want to burn in hell or because you want to gain the rewards of eternal bliss. Very similar.
The difference is, that the Theists actually CAN be unselfish in the sense that they (1) Do not view themselves as being programmed to do something so they actually make an objective choice (2) Because they believe there to actually be good and evil and (3) Because what they aspire to obtain IS the good and not so much what they are programmed to do or what makes them feel good for the moment.
What do I mean by (3)? They aspire to obtain the “good”, which is the objective source called God. This is eternal bliss. So in essence, only Theists can do “good for goods sake”, whereas an Atheists cannot define good and it is purely subjective, making it far more selfish and petty than any Theists motivation. Further, I would say that the quality of the motivation is also much higher since it is considered objective and eternal, whereas your motivation is temporary and superficially spent on a life worth objectively nothing (meaning that there is no meaning at all) and done so with the pure intention in mind of “living life to the fullest”, whereas the Theists says “live life for good (God)”.
This is idealistic, of course…since not all Theists actually live this way, but that’s the difference in foundation.
I also believe that the lack of an afterlife concept also causes problems in other areas, such as what we consider to be “right” and “wrong”. For instance, I believe that without the concept of an afterlife there is no good reason to view murder as “wrong”. Let’s say that someone is murdered. In the Atheist (or anti-supernaturalist to be more precise, since that is what most Atheists are these days), world view, when you’re dead you’re dead. How can a victim be a victim if they don’t realize they’ve been victimized? The dead guy isn’t going to be wondering “Wow, I just got killed”. He’s dead.
You could say some of the following: (1) It’s wrong because it affects OTHER people, which means that the quality of that mans life is completely dependent on how others feel, which will cause other problems for society and how we value human life (2) It’s wrong because there is some sort of objective standard that considers it wrong, but you don’t have that or (3) It’s wrong because that man “lost out” on life, but once again, if he doesn’t notice and there is no objective source to claim he is a victim then there’s no reason to suppose he “lost out” on anything.
If there is nothing after death then being murdered isn’t really a big deal, because technically you wouldn’t realize it to be upset about it. You’re dead.
Your next question is interesting…
You basically pull out the Problem of Evil. Before I go on to give my answer I just want to say that as an Atheist this really should be no problem for you because good and evil don’t exist. What happens in this world happens. It just is. So to even be upset about “evil” things doesn’t really make any sense, much less does it have any meaning since all things considered are simply based on how you feel or how you were programmed to feel, which isn’t bad entirely, but by itself it is (lacking the objective known as God).
Your first concern is how an Omniscient God can create something He knows will turn out to be evil. My answer to this (as you may already know) is that there is no quality in the choice to submit to God if there are no options. Basically, this is the Free Will defense. So, let us say that He created robots (like the angels in a sense) to go about their business while worshiping Him or what have you. It’s really pointless to create something with the intention of being connected to that something (in the form of a relationship) if that something has no choice in the matter. It’s kind of like me buying a computer to talk to me and compliment me all day, when clearly I know that the computer doesn’t really mean it or care. A pointless invention.
As for Omnipotence, it would seem that God could stop all the evil in the world if He wanted, but He clearly does not. How this prevents him from being all-powerful because He chooses to do otherwise in certain situations doesn’t really make much sense to me, especially since He has already deemed that those who have done wrong will be punished later.
So the real problem is regarding Benevolence. Is God a “good” creator? The problem with this question is that God is not good, but that good is God. So to say that God is not being Himself is rather odd. I know that this doesn’t really tackle your objection, though. You may say, “well, I think not killing people is good, so if God kills people He’s bad”.
I can see where you’re going with that, but what we know is (1) We don’t know why God allows certain evils (2) God has promised to reconcile everyone who has been wronged (3) Free Will plays a huge part (4) We define good by what God is (5) We cannot do everything that God does because we don’t have the authority (like taking life) (6) Without this objective standard (God), ironically, there is no reason to be mad or consider things “evil” or “good”, yet there is a reason to be mad if you believe in God yet also satisfying to believe that He has it under control and that we play a huge part in stopping those evils if we wish.
It just seems to me that the problem of evil can be reconciled for a Theist, but for an Atheist it’s a pointless objection. We Theists can say “Problem of Evil”, but all Atheists can really say is “Evil, no Problem”.
M,
Despite not mentioning it by name until quite a bit into things, your entire post is really about the Problem of Evil as far as I can tell (when you get to the root of things, anyway), so I’ll address that.
But first: I want to talk about angels. The whole thing doesn’t make much sense; they were supposedly created as being that, as you put it, “go about their business while worshiping Him.” The problem with this idea, which supposes they lack free will, is the revolt of Lucifer et al. The fact this was possible proves that, assuming for the sake of argument that they exist, angels possess free will.
On another Lucifer-related note (we’re moving into the Problem of Evil now), Hell. Hell is absolutely incomprehensible to me when combined with the notion of creation by an omniscient, benevolent being. Before creating man, such a being would already have known that by rules set down by him, the vast majority of his creations would be consigned to eternal damnation for disregarding rules set down by an invisible force that does not provide enough proof to prevent reasonable objection to the idea of his existence and authority.
The third point is, oddly enough, not related to the problem of evil (I say this is odd because I suspect it is what brought on your critique of it). My assertion that a being could not be all knowing and all powerful was not intended to address the concern of his ability to stop evil (which is why I left his supposed benevolence out of that part), but his ability to stop the future. What I was suggesting is that for something to be truly known, it must be unchangeable. If something is subject to change, you don’t know that thing. You merely have what I will refer to as a justified belief that it is true. This does not make it true, as having a reason for believing something does not make that thing so. Therefore, what I am suggesting is that if a being knows the future, he is powerless to change it (for better or worse). Conversely, if the future can be changed, then it inherently lacks definition and is therefore unknowable.
To preemptively address what I suspect may be an argument against this if you (or anyone else) responds, It is not sufficient to suggest that my point can be refuted by the idea that such a being could simply choose not to use such powers. While technically possible, there is no basis for this other than the fact that it agrees with the Theist premise. It is equivalent to the uncommon atheist that you depict in your arguments insisting that an omnipotent, benevolent being would stop all evil, and therefore does not exist.
As usual, I welcome a response.
Regarding living in a post-theistic society, I find it interesting that France, Denmark, and Sweden were all mentioned. I also think it is significant that they have a strong Christian past.
LorMarie:
What do you find interesting and significant about it? I can think of some things, but I’m curious as to what you’re thinking.
BTW, it’s probably also notable that the old USSR had a Christian past too. And while it’s still too early to tell where things will go, they have moved back that way a good deal since the fall of the Iron Curtain.
True, a Christian past, but it also became heavily atheistic. I’m not sure what it is now. As much as I question Christianity, I’d have to admit one thing: I’d rather live in a Christian society than one based on Islamic law or if it were “atheistic” so to speak. From my POV, Christians are the only group that admits to the wrongs done in its name…not even atheists admit to that.
LorMarie:
Christians are the only group that admits to the wrongs done in its name…
The Japanese admit that they did wrong in WWII. Germans ditto. There are many leaders in the former USSR who admit that they did wrong. Just a few examples that pop to mind.
But I do agree that I’d rather live in a more or less Christian society than a fundy Islam one.
regarding religion causing war, Dont Atheists realize that Mao Zedong, Stalin and Mussolini were atheists? I am not saying atheism causes war, what i am saying is that point number 1 is not valid.
George
many wars have been caused in the name of a certain god, or religion.
no wars have been waged in the name of Athiesm.
No one has died in the name of Athiesm.