There are still members of a cartoonish fire and brimstone Christianity from an age long gone. For someone who urges “secularists and believers to work together” perhaps you should avoid pointing out moral blunders that scream “human being” rather than any specific dogma. Obviously the bloody 20th century atheists weren’t shocking for their appalling application of Marxist dogma, but more for the immense scale of their bloodlust. Could it be that any concentration of human power, regardless of specific dogma, inevitably transgresses on the rights of men? Underlying justification of some kind is always used before the hammer drops, and religion is only one of the ways human power becomes concentrated and exercised.
I do want to read more of your writing but this one looks like you may be championing an already immovable segment of society. I suppose it is fun, and certainly simple, to point out bizarre statements made by an ancient people(and modern as well), but I think we have all read this stuff many times. I think it is a mistake to rely on your own faith that the answer lies in secular philosophy and the misconception that “reason, rationality, and empiricism” will lead everyone down the same path of truth. You don’t have to look far to see honest men of science disparaging any who disagree, even other honest men of science. Human beings of all stripes seem to share the same weaknesses. Give them the same concentration of power, and I see no reason to think that the same patterns won’t again occur.
This wasn't up to your high standard of intellectual critique. The arguments you made were a little less than your usual brilliance. To me, they displayed a lack of rigor in digging into the theological arguments that you quickly brushed aside. There are many atheists , myself included, who find the teachings of Jesus a helpful guide to a meaningful and challenging lifestyle. We also recognize the difficulties in determining the actual sayings and acts of Jesus. Good theological work has been done by Marcus Borg, John Spong, Karen Armstrong, and others to indicate the cultural and literary complexities that must be confronted before making decisions you so cavalierly made in this article.
Agree in many respects. The Aztecs, Huron, and Iroquois aren't held to the same standard as the Roman Catholics that came to convert/invade/etc. *I suspect* that Micheal isn't also willing to hold the Greeks or Romans to the same standard. Greek culture could be slyly summarized as "Endless war, slavery, pederasty, and the mistreatment of women."
I don’t get your point. Are you saying Michael would not criticize ancient Roman and Greek culture, and the religious framework for their cultures, as badly flawed? I think he most certainly would. He wouldn’t characterize those cultures as nothing but war, slavery and mistreatment of people, but he would reject the religious basis for many of its values, which is the point of his article.
Not in so many words -- but the "these were horrible people, and their followers pick and choose..." applies to almost every great great civilization/persona in history. (Except one person, of course ;-)
Too broad on the strokes, Michael -- the Bible is much more of a historical process than a cake recipe. I will agree on some of the first section -- great quote from Harvard/Dartmouth sociologist Eugen Rosenstock-Huessy: "Religion is dead, killed by the theologians."
Certainly covers a lot of ground - and in maybe more detail than is entirely justified. TL/DR and all that.
Seems a reasonable abstract or summary is something I read in the preface to The Golden Bough, though certainly haven't read the whole book: good people will use religion to good ends, and bad people to bad ends. Often difficult to tell the difference; something of a mixed blessing or less-than-perfect tool ...
One more and I'll shut up. There is a technical problem with your observation when you look at the development of Western legal science after the rediscovery of Justinian's codexes (see Berman's "Law and Revolution'). There was an explicit use of "faith" (religion) first by the Scholastic jurists in Italy and then the Protestants after, to craft the legal system that we simply all assume is reasonable today. (jury trial, concepts like duress and intent are very much the products of this). It's quite complex.
What Mr Shermer is relentlessly describing are the fabrications and fantasies on that book where humans are centerstage of creation. It only displays divine arrogance by the god in question.
You argue why faith and religion are not reliable and site many examples. You know the Bible well. You do make several moral judgments like: "The Bible, in fact, is one of the most *immoral* works" or "Bible is possibly the most unhelpful guide ever written for *determining right from wrong*" or "It’s chockfull of *bizarre* stories about *dysfunctional families.*
Where does your moral and ethical definitions and standards come from does it really help people?
How is an atheist or skeptic so confident on what is "immoral," "bizarre" or "dysfunctional?" As a pastor of a church, I've used the Bible for years for guidance for a number of things. I've helped hundreds of people who need guidance, support, wisdom, confidence, moral strength, etc. I've seen the Bible help people and observed how it has been a guide to cultures.
We see the importance what the Bible and the Christian faith can do, when people are under totalitarian attack, by anti-religious leaders like Hitler. Albert Einstein, as a Jew, looked for strong moral advocates in the real world of Nazi Germany. He made this observation about the Christian church:
"Being a lover of freedom, when the Nazi revolution came, I looked to the universities to defend it, knowing that they had always boasted of their devotion to the *cause of truth;* but no, the universities took *refuge in silence.* Then I looked to the great editors of the newspapers (and authors) whose flaming editorials in days gone by had proclaimed the love of freedom; but were silenced in a few short weeks....Only the church stood squarely across the path of Hitler's campaign for suppressing the truth. I never had any special interest in the church before, but now I feel a great affection and admiration for it because the Church alone has had the courage and persistence to stand for intellectual truth and moral freedom. I am forced to confess that what I once despised I now praise unreservedly."
Dr. Shermer, how can an immoral, dysfunctional, and bizarre document and faith do so much good?
I'll take the church (and all it's faults) and it's moral code because it has proven over time in real places that supernatural revelation is what we need to see justice and the flourishing of humanity.
Terrific article. It embodies so many of the very same arguments and reasoning I’ve used for decades. I disagree with commenters who think the issues are more complex than Michael thinks. No. It’s very simple. Genocides and slavery are wrong, period. Culture and context do not excuse basic immorality. Jesus did not repudiate the nasty Old Testament God, but fully accepted Him. That is a key point.
"So religion can and does motivate people to do good works, and we should always acknowledge any person or institution that pushes humanity further along the path of progress"
To me, this seems to presuppose that "good" is an eminent property and that moral claims have the ability to reflect truth. I think skeptics find this difficult to believe. How can we determine moral values from a falsifiable system such as science? What is the nature of moral duty or obligation?
If "faith" isn't a reliable method for determining moral values, what is? Do we have any reasons for believing there are such things as "right" and "wring" outside of our own feelings about them? If our moral sense is a byproduct of evolution, it was not "designed" to pick out any objective features about the world, and we thus have no imperative for following them. Perhaps the closest methodology would be something like the cornel realists. I'd argue there are no reliable methods for determining moral values because these don't exist at all, just a bunch of fairy tales.
There are still members of a cartoonish fire and brimstone Christianity from an age long gone. For someone who urges “secularists and believers to work together” perhaps you should avoid pointing out moral blunders that scream “human being” rather than any specific dogma. Obviously the bloody 20th century atheists weren’t shocking for their appalling application of Marxist dogma, but more for the immense scale of their bloodlust. Could it be that any concentration of human power, regardless of specific dogma, inevitably transgresses on the rights of men? Underlying justification of some kind is always used before the hammer drops, and religion is only one of the ways human power becomes concentrated and exercised.
I do want to read more of your writing but this one looks like you may be championing an already immovable segment of society. I suppose it is fun, and certainly simple, to point out bizarre statements made by an ancient people(and modern as well), but I think we have all read this stuff many times. I think it is a mistake to rely on your own faith that the answer lies in secular philosophy and the misconception that “reason, rationality, and empiricism” will lead everyone down the same path of truth. You don’t have to look far to see honest men of science disparaging any who disagree, even other honest men of science. Human beings of all stripes seem to share the same weaknesses. Give them the same concentration of power, and I see no reason to think that the same patterns won’t again occur.
This wasn't up to your high standard of intellectual critique. The arguments you made were a little less than your usual brilliance. To me, they displayed a lack of rigor in digging into the theological arguments that you quickly brushed aside. There are many atheists , myself included, who find the teachings of Jesus a helpful guide to a meaningful and challenging lifestyle. We also recognize the difficulties in determining the actual sayings and acts of Jesus. Good theological work has been done by Marcus Borg, John Spong, Karen Armstrong, and others to indicate the cultural and literary complexities that must be confronted before making decisions you so cavalierly made in this article.
Agree in many respects. The Aztecs, Huron, and Iroquois aren't held to the same standard as the Roman Catholics that came to convert/invade/etc. *I suspect* that Micheal isn't also willing to hold the Greeks or Romans to the same standard. Greek culture could be slyly summarized as "Endless war, slavery, pederasty, and the mistreatment of women."
I don’t get your point. Are you saying Michael would not criticize ancient Roman and Greek culture, and the religious framework for their cultures, as badly flawed? I think he most certainly would. He wouldn’t characterize those cultures as nothing but war, slavery and mistreatment of people, but he would reject the religious basis for many of its values, which is the point of his article.
Not in so many words -- but the "these were horrible people, and their followers pick and choose..." applies to almost every great great civilization/persona in history. (Except one person, of course ;-)
Too broad on the strokes, Michael -- the Bible is much more of a historical process than a cake recipe. I will agree on some of the first section -- great quote from Harvard/Dartmouth sociologist Eugen Rosenstock-Huessy: "Religion is dead, killed by the theologians."
Certainly covers a lot of ground - and in maybe more detail than is entirely justified. TL/DR and all that.
Seems a reasonable abstract or summary is something I read in the preface to The Golden Bough, though certainly haven't read the whole book: good people will use religion to good ends, and bad people to bad ends. Often difficult to tell the difference; something of a mixed blessing or less-than-perfect tool ...
One more and I'll shut up. There is a technical problem with your observation when you look at the development of Western legal science after the rediscovery of Justinian's codexes (see Berman's "Law and Revolution'). There was an explicit use of "faith" (religion) first by the Scholastic jurists in Italy and then the Protestants after, to craft the legal system that we simply all assume is reasonable today. (jury trial, concepts like duress and intent are very much the products of this). It's quite complex.
What Mr Shermer is relentlessly describing are the fabrications and fantasies on that book where humans are centerstage of creation. It only displays divine arrogance by the god in question.
This is the only thing that’s relevant.
You argue why faith and religion are not reliable and site many examples. You know the Bible well. You do make several moral judgments like: "The Bible, in fact, is one of the most *immoral* works" or "Bible is possibly the most unhelpful guide ever written for *determining right from wrong*" or "It’s chockfull of *bizarre* stories about *dysfunctional families.*
Where does your moral and ethical definitions and standards come from does it really help people?
How is an atheist or skeptic so confident on what is "immoral," "bizarre" or "dysfunctional?" As a pastor of a church, I've used the Bible for years for guidance for a number of things. I've helped hundreds of people who need guidance, support, wisdom, confidence, moral strength, etc. I've seen the Bible help people and observed how it has been a guide to cultures.
We see the importance what the Bible and the Christian faith can do, when people are under totalitarian attack, by anti-religious leaders like Hitler. Albert Einstein, as a Jew, looked for strong moral advocates in the real world of Nazi Germany. He made this observation about the Christian church:
"Being a lover of freedom, when the Nazi revolution came, I looked to the universities to defend it, knowing that they had always boasted of their devotion to the *cause of truth;* but no, the universities took *refuge in silence.* Then I looked to the great editors of the newspapers (and authors) whose flaming editorials in days gone by had proclaimed the love of freedom; but were silenced in a few short weeks....Only the church stood squarely across the path of Hitler's campaign for suppressing the truth. I never had any special interest in the church before, but now I feel a great affection and admiration for it because the Church alone has had the courage and persistence to stand for intellectual truth and moral freedom. I am forced to confess that what I once despised I now praise unreservedly."
Dr. Shermer, how can an immoral, dysfunctional, and bizarre document and faith do so much good?
I'll take the church (and all it's faults) and it's moral code because it has proven over time in real places that supernatural revelation is what we need to see justice and the flourishing of humanity.
very good article, god of the bible was insane and Jesus was an insane cult leader both are fiction in a book of fiction
Terrific article. It embodies so many of the very same arguments and reasoning I’ve used for decades. I disagree with commenters who think the issues are more complex than Michael thinks. No. It’s very simple. Genocides and slavery are wrong, period. Culture and context do not excuse basic immorality. Jesus did not repudiate the nasty Old Testament God, but fully accepted Him. That is a key point.
"So religion can and does motivate people to do good works, and we should always acknowledge any person or institution that pushes humanity further along the path of progress"
To me, this seems to presuppose that "good" is an eminent property and that moral claims have the ability to reflect truth. I think skeptics find this difficult to believe. How can we determine moral values from a falsifiable system such as science? What is the nature of moral duty or obligation?
If "faith" isn't a reliable method for determining moral values, what is? Do we have any reasons for believing there are such things as "right" and "wring" outside of our own feelings about them? If our moral sense is a byproduct of evolution, it was not "designed" to pick out any objective features about the world, and we thus have no imperative for following them. Perhaps the closest methodology would be something like the cornel realists. I'd argue there are no reliable methods for determining moral values because these don't exist at all, just a bunch of fairy tales.
Why do you only mention Christians and not Jews when talking about the Bible? Fear of being called anti-Semitic.?
How are you going to claim that religion is to blame for Christian Conquistadors spreading germs? Presumably all or most of that was accidental.
Only one commandment lives the great one
Faith has always been entwined with good works; however, salvation never was meant to be.