Why Peter Singer makes the New Atheists nervous

[Why Syzygy]

(Your arguments are with Nietzsche.)

(...) Some people consider Singer a provocateur who says outrageous things just to get attention. But Singer is deadly serious about his views and—as emerged in our debate—has a consistent rational basis for his controversial positions.

To understand Singer, it's helpful to contrast him with "New Atheists" like Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett, and Richard Dawkins. The New Atheists say we can get rid of God but preserve morality. They insist that no one needs God in order to be good; atheists can act no less virtuously than Christians. (And indeed, some atheists do put Christians to shame.) Even while repudiating the Christian God, Dawkins has publicly called himself a "cultural Christian."

But this position creates a problem outlined more than a century ago by the atheist philosopher Nietzsche. The death of God, Nietzsche argued, means that all the Christian values that have shaped the West rest on a mythical foundation. One may, out of habit, continue to live according to these values for a while. Over time, however, the values will decay, and if they are not replaced by new values, man will truly have to face the prospect of nihilism, what Nietzsche termed "the abyss."

Nietzsche's argument is illustrated in considering two of the central principles of Western civilization: "All men are created equal" and "Human life is precious." Nietzsche attributes both ideas to Christianity. It is because we are created equal and in the image of God that our lives have moral worth and that we share the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Nietzsche's warning was that none of these values make sense without the background moral framework against which they were formulated. A post-Christian West, he argued, must go back to the ethical drawing board and reconsider its most cherished values, which include its traditional belief in the equal dignity of every human life.

Singer resolutely takes up a Nietzschean call for a "transvaluation of values," with a full awareness of the radical implications. He argues that we are not creations of God but rather mere Darwinian primates. We exist on an unbroken continuum with animals. Christianity, he says, arbitrarily separated man and animal, placing human life on a pedestal and consigning the animals to the status of tools for human well-being. Now, Singer says, we must remove Homo sapiens from this privileged position and restore the natural order. This translates into more rights for animals and less special treatment for human beings. There is a grim consistency in Singer's call to extend rights to the apes while removing traditional protections for unwanted children, people with mental disabilities, and the noncontributing elderly.

Some of Singer's critics have called him a Nazi and compared his proposals to Hitler's schemes for eliminating those perceived as unwanted and unfit. A careful reading of his work, however, shows that Singer is no Hitler. He doesn't want state-sponsored killings. Rather, he wants the decision to kill to be made by private individuals like you and me. Instead of government-conducted genocide, Singer favors free-market homicide.

Why haven't the atheists embraced Peter Singer? I suspect it is because they fear that his unpalatable views will discredit the cause of atheism. What they haven't considered, however, is whether Singer, virtually alone among their numbers, is uncompromisingly working out the implications of living in a truly secular society, one completely purged of Christian and transcendental foundations. In Singer, we may be witnessing someone both horrifying and yet somehow refreshing: an intellectually honest atheist.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2009/march/22.60.html?start=2

[Teaser]

1. Bullshit. Read Jurgen Habermas

or Kant.

[Why Syzygy]

4. Do you agree with Singer? nt

[Teaser]

25. I agree with Habermas

.

[Democracyinkind]

11. You beat me too it. Good point!

... Habermas rules! Experience European culture (you know, the good part, not the genocide)

[DeSwiss]

53. I agree. Pure bullshit.

"Nietzsche's argument is illustrated in considering two of the central principles of Western civilization: "All men are created equal" and "Human life is precious." Nietzsche attributes both ideas to Christianity."

I thought the OP was about some asshole named Singer? Besides, who the hell cares what Nietzsche attributes "so-called" Christian principles to?

- What a fucking waste of electrons.....

[arcadian]

2. I embrace the abyss

I cuddle up to it and it keeps me warm.

[tekisui]

3. I really like Singer's wrintings.

He is quite the thinker. He has backed away from some of his stands on the status of developmentally disabled people, after spending time with some. I don't always agree with his views, exactly, but he is a great thinker.

[drm604]

5. "New Atheists"

"They insist that no one needs God in order to be good; atheists can act no less virtuously than Christians."

And "old atheists" claimed otherwise? That article is using a pretty broad brush.

[Why Syzygy]

9. Not so much.

Nietzsche's warning was that none of these values make sense without the background moral framework against which they were formulated. A post-Christian West, he argued, must go back to the ethical drawing board and reconsider its most cherished values, which include its traditional belief in the equal dignity of every human life.

Nietzsche = "old Atheist"

[drm604]

13. Nietzsche <> every, or even most "old atheists".

Nietzsche <> every, or even most "old atheists". I doubt that the concept of "old atheists" even existed until someone coined the term "new atheist" but I assume that it means every atheist who has not been lumped under the term "new atheist".

I'm curious who about coined the term "new atheists". Do Dawkins et al. refer to themselves by that term? Anyone know?

Why do you capitalize "atheist" as if it's a proper noun?

[Why Syzygy]

16. I don't have to

capitalize it if you don't want me to. I was just doing it out of 'respect'.
Seems like a proper noun to me.

It makes an interesting :google: "new atheist" .. "new atheism" .. Try it.

eta: I'll start. Besides "newatheist.org" and "thenewatheist.org", this comes near the top:

http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,3662,The-New-Atheist-Movement-is-destructive,Julian-Baggini,page1#353564

... which is this article ...

http://www.fritanke.no/ENGLISH/2009/The_new_atheist_movement_is_destructive/

(...) Not reading The God Delusion, God is Not Great, Breaking the Spell and The End of Faith is perfectly reasonable. Why on earth would I devote precious reading hours to books which largely tell me what I already believe? These books are surely mainly for agnostics and open-minded believers. In fact, I think atheists who have read these books have more of a responsibility to account for their actions than I do my inaction. As the posters on the sides of British buses rather simplistically put it, “There is probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.” God's non-existence is a fact atheists live with, not something that they should obsessively read about.

But if I haven't read these books, surely I should have no opinion about them? I think you’d be less sure of this if you had read How to Talk About Books You Haven't Read by Pierre Bayard (or even not read it). In any case, my opinions are not so much about these books as the general tone and direction the new atheism they represent has adopted. This is not a function of what exactly these books say, but of how they are perceived, and the kind of comments the four horsemen make in newspaper articles and interviews. All this, I think, has been unhelpful in many ways. In short, the new atheism gets atheism wrong, gets religion wrong, and is counterproductive.

How does it get atheism wrong? When I wrote my own book on the subject, I believed that atheism was widely misunderstood as being primarily a negative attack on religious belief, on which it is parasitic. (...)

[drm604]

24. Capitalizing it makes it look like a proper noun

like Christian or Hebrew, or Muslim. It makes it appear as if it's some monolithic group (or a number of smaller monolithic sects) rather than simply a philosophical viewpoint independently held by some individuals. Certainly there are some organized groups of atheists who capitalize the word in their groups' names but unless you're referring specifically to one of those groups (and using that group's full name), then, in my humble opinion, capitalization is either a grammatical error, a philisophical mistake (the mistake being that atheism is a religion, or at least a mirror image of one), or a deliberate attempt to make it appear to be an organized group. (Note that I'm not applying any of those to you, I'm not sure where you're coming from, and it's always possible that there is some other reason that I'm not seeing.)

I don't understand how the "new atheism" gets atheism wrong. Atheism is simply a lack of belief. If Dawkins, for example, sees religion as destructive to society and something that should therefore be discouraged, that's simply one individual's views on religion, and not a tenet of atheism which, if it could be said to have any tenets at all, has the single tenet of lacking belief in a God or gods.

Edited for spelling and punctuation.

[Why Syzygy]

32. I think

what you're saying is in line with the article I linked (reply post). And, the original article posits that THOSE who are influencing the "new thought" (if you will), and quite often quoted and showcased in public arenas as spokespersons for "atheists", are presented with a quandary when they claim, as does Dawkins, that he is a "cultural Christian". Perhaps that is the nuance of the term "new atheist", ie, someone who wants the "culture" part without the "god" relationship? The quandary comes because some atheists want a much larger change in "culture" as it is currently expressed.

Atheism itself cannot be put in a tiny package, I agree, although it may often be presented that way on this forum, for example. The same can be said for religion and Christianity. We are not tiny boxes either. ALL have a lot of thought and wide, dynamic variances.

[drm604]

33. someone who wants the "culture" part without the "god" relationship

But is that really new? Lot's of atheists celebrate, for example, Christmas as a secular fest, and I don't think that's all that new.

If you grow up with Christmas trees, gifts, family get togethers, roasted turkeys, etc. then you tend to grow emotional attachments to those things even if you also grow skeptical of the religious underpinnings. I can see where it could be argued that you are then a "cultural Christian".

Some atheists do want bigger changes. Some non-atheists also want bigger changes, some want huge changes. And many, if not most, of us on DU want large changes that have no direct connection to religion.

[stopbush]

43. Yes. Though we draw the line at celebrating Easter.

I'm an atheist who was raised Christian. I also majored in music at college. I very well know this is Holy Week. On Monday, I listened to Bach's St Matthew Passion and his St John Passion while at the office. Today, I'm listening to Handel's Messiah in the car player (did you know Handel wrote the piece for Easter, not Xmas?).

I listen to these pieces because I like classical music. I'm listening to them this particular week because as a "cultural Xian," Holy Week/Easter is on my mind (the result of decades of religious indoctrination and years of performing these pieces as a musician). At one point, these pieces held religious significance for me. They no longer do, just as the the music I used to sing at Jewish services held no religious significance for me when I was a believing Xian. My family also has a tradition of celebrating St Patrick's Day by eating corned beef & cabbage and watching The Quiet Man and Darby O'Gill & The Little People on DVD, even though we're not Catholic and only Irish on my wife's side of the family.

I see no reason to avoid Bach's religious music. For one reason, almost all of his music is religious in nature, and a life without Bach would be less of a life. For another, many of the texts he used were embarrassing to read when I was a believer. Now, they just seem dated and funny in the way that religion is often funny. I don't need to believe in the religious message behind Bach's works to enjoy them on a musical level, any more than I need to believe that the coincidence-ridden libretto for Verdi's Il trovatore is believable for me to enjoy the music of that opera.

We celebrate Xmas at our home as a secular, Santa-based, present-giving, goodwill to all holiday. We don't celebrate Easter: no family dinner or religious observance and - now that the kids are older - no baskets of candy delivered by Mr Bunny. We'll probably go to the beach Sunday so the kids can boogie board, then catch some BBQ or a pizza on the way home.

The only thing that I'm praying will rise from the dead this Sunday is my sex life. :evilfrown:

[RaleighNCDUer]

55. I don't celebrate Easter -

but I luvs me some Cadbury eggs.

[paulsby]

42. no

here we go again

"Atheism is simply a lack of belief"

keerist, this comes up so much but people still fail to distinguish

strong atheism is not a lack of belief.

weak atheism is.

lumping all atheists together as having a mere lack of belief fails to distinguish between

"there is no god"
"i have no believe in a god"

which are radically different.

[drm604]

47. Yes, here we go again.

:eyes:
Keerist, yourself. Can't we keep this civil?

I know of few, if any, "strong atheists" in the sense of "I believe I can absolutely prove that there are no gods". "Strong atheist" is mostly a straw man. Even Dawkins doesn't fit into that category. In his writings he talks in terms of the probability of such things existing. He gives it a very low probability but can't rule it out 100%.

[RaleighNCDUer]

23. Because it is a religion, after all.

:sarcasm:

[drm604]

29. I saw your subject line and was about to get into a "discussion" with you.

I thought that you were sincerely answering my rhetorical question, but then I scrolled down. The Darwin fish clued me in even without the sarcasm tag.

[BurtWorm]

41. Why Syzygy, atheism is not a philosophy or ideology. It's an attitude about religion.

Some atheists may be Nietzschean, others Randean, others Marxist, others Buddhist. Even the so-called "New Atheists" are a diverse group: Dawkins is a straightforward New Leftist, Hitchens is anti-abortion, pro-crusade against Islamic terror, Harris believes in reincarnation... There is no underlying philosophy we all share, any more than you and Satanists share an underlying philosophy because you both believe in the supernatural.

[Warpy]

12. The only thing that distinguishes new atheists from old

is that the new atheists are claiming who they are in public instead of hiding away and passing, like disbelief is something shameful. It's not.

As for atheists being expected to accept every atheist writer in some sort of divine brotherhood(!), it would be like expecting all Christians to accept everything Dobson writes.

The whole premise of the above article is asinine.

[drm604]

14. Exactly.

:hi:

I was just trying to say it more politely.

[moggie]

79. Was Bertrand Russell a "new atheist"?

I think "new atheist" is nothing more than a marketing term coined by publishers. It means "atheists who write books critical of religion which sell well". What's "new" is the existence of a significant market for such writing, not the writing itself.

[Warpy]

83. Bertrand Russell was far enough ahead of his time

that yes, he qualified by the virtue of not hiding who he was.

I discovered him when I was 12 and realized then it wasn't shameful to be a non believer.

[JerseygirlCT]

81. That struck me, too

This Christian certainly doesn't insist that one needs God to be good or act virtuously.

Perhaps the problem is with such sweeping statements that ignore the essential grayness of much of human behavior. (As opposed to "black and white")

[ZombieHorde]

6. I just think about the kind of world I wish to live in, and then I advocate for that world.

Rather, he wants the decision to kill to be made by private individuals like you and me. Instead of government-conducted genocide, Singer favors free-market homicide.

The above quote is not consistent with the kind of world I wish to live in.

[baldguy]

7. Nobody is saying we can get rid of God but preserve morality.

What Hitchens & Dawkins say is that morality and religion have nothing to do with one another. The idea that "All men are created equal" and "Human life is precious" is not based in Christianity, and would be components of Western Civilization even if Diagoras and Socrates had been more influential.

Morality needs religion like a bicycle needs a fish.

[RaleighNCDUer]

27. "even if"?

I would suggest "even moreso if"...

Socrates and Diagoras never advocated the slaughter of those who did not believe as they did.

[Odin2005]

52. But Plato, the darling of totalitarians, did.

[RaleighNCDUer]

54. I don't remember Plato ever having any problem with the gods. nt

[Odin2005]

58. I was refering to his totalitarian political beliefs.

[Odin2005]

51. I'm an Atheist and I DO think equality and the preciousnss of human life derive from Christianity.

A few Epicurean and Stoic philosophers said such things but most Greeks and Romans, even most educated Greeks and Romans, would of laughed at the notion of "All men are created equal" and "Human life is precious". Diagoras and Socrates were the striking exceptions, not the rule. Plato played lip-service to Socrates but in reality betrayed everything that his mentor stood for, and it is Plato that made "Sophist" a derogatory term. Most people admired the elitist reactionary Plato while very little of what Sophists like Diagoras wrote survives, which should tell you everything you need to know.

[stopbush]

57. Where does Jesus discuss equality and the preciousness of human life?

Thanks in advance for the references.

[Odin2005]

59. I'm talking about the culture impact Christianity had on Europe.

Which doesn't necessarily have much to do with what Jesus actually said.

[stopbush]

61. Fine,

Anyway, Jesus didn't found Christianity. Paul did.

The "impact" Christianity had on Europe was to large extent negative - Dark Ages, Crusades, Inquisitions. If you wish to talk about the Enlightenment or the influence that other secular/intellectual philosophies had on politics and religions - most directly, the ability of religion to adapt secular ideas that advanced the belief that men were equal and to graft them on to religion as if they had always been there - then, that's a different discussion.

[RaleighNCDUer]

62. Paul. Wasn't he the guy who started out persecuting christians,

then got hit by lightning or a psychotic break and turned to persecuting jews?

The enlightenment was primarily founded in the re-discovery of the greek philosophers after the dark ages (in Arab libraries captured during the crusades, mostly).

Christianity was built on the ruins of the Roman Empire, and retained much of its structure and all its prejudices. The philosophers of the enlightenment had to go to writings that pre-dated christianity to come up with concepts of equality, democracy, human rights.

[stopbush]

66. Paul saw Jesus only in visions.

Never wrote a single word about Jesus' Earthly life, because he didn't believe Jesus was a corporeal being. Paul wrote his epistles before the Gospels were written, so he had no knowledge of the fiction that was concocted by Mark (and later expanded upon by Matthew and Luke) that averred that Jesus was a real person.

It's really interesting to read Paul's writings with that in mind. His brand of Christianity aligns much better with the mystery religions that were rife in the Mediterranean at the time than it does with the idea of an historical Jesus.

Thanks for the sentences on the Enlightenment.

[Why Syzygy]

63. It actually derives

from much earlier. Remember, Jesus Christ was sent to and from the Jews.

In the beginning, God created man in his own image, male and female he created them.
That's where the value originates.

[RaleighNCDUer]

69. Except in the SECOND creation story, when he created woman

from man's rib, ordaining man's preeminence.

[Why Syzygy]

73. That's where the

ethic originates in Christianity. That was the question and there is the answer.

What is WRONG with you people? FOCUS! sheesh

[stopbush]

71. Exactly when was that "beginning" for man?

Was it 13.5 billion years ago when the universe came into being? Was it perhaps 4.5 billion years ago when the Earth first formed? Was it anywhere from 100,000 to 250,000 years ago when homo sapiens first appeared on the planet? Is that when the value originated?

Or, perhaps you wish to date the origination of that value to the date when Judaism first came upon the scene? That would be as recent as 4BC and as late as 15BC. If one wishes to use the typical Bible-thumpers age of the Earth, we can't go back any later than about 5BC for the creation of the Earth and "the beginning" for man.

Of course, that begs a question: IF god created man 100,000 to 250,000 years ago, why did he wait until 5BC to give them the "value" the originated in his creation of them in his (god's) image? Or, are you proposing that he created homo sapiens 250,000 years ago and gave man that "value" at that point? If so, why did god allow man to live with that value for 96,000 to 246,000 years before making his next appearance with the beginnings of the Hebrews?

Could you clarify? Thanks.

[Why Syzygy]

72. No.

You haven't the foggiest clue how to stay on topic. I answered the question as it stood.
That's all you get. :freak:

[stopbush]

76. No, you gave me a vague answer about "the beginning" which could mean

anything to anyone.

BTW - since when is asking for specifics about language you're using going off topic?

[struggle4progress]

84. "A man traveling from Jerusalem to Jericho was attacked by robbers who stole his clothes, beat him

and left him half dead. A priest, passing down that same road, saw the man and walked by on the other side. And likewise, a Levite, when he passed and saw him, walked by on the other side. Then a Samaritan, passed where the man lay; and when he saw him, took pity on him, bandaged his wounds, anointing them with oil and wine. And he carried the man on his own donkey to an inn and looked after him. The next day he took out paid the innkeeper with silver. 'Care for him,' he said, 'and when I return, I will reimburse you for any of your expenses.' Which of these do you think was a neighbor to the man attacked by robbers?"

Luke 10:30ff

[stopbush]

87. What has that verse got to do with equality and the preciousness of human life?

[struggle4progress]

88. let who has ears hear

[stopbush]

89. Pretty weak, S4P. Pretty weak.

[struggle4progress]

67. I'm a Christian, and I'd be careful about claiming that equality or respect for human life appear

first as Christian values -- I think these humanist values have appeared in many cultures throughout history, though the values always produce a fight against the status quo -- and in the particular case of Christianity, I think these values spring naturally from an earlier Hebrew tradition

On the other hand, the gospels do clearly take hold of these values

[Democracyinkind]

8. Ah. As a student of philosophy, this really creeps me out.

Nietzsche is not a social philosopher of the "enlightened" school that defines our social contract. Citing "Der Wille zur Macht", "Gott ist tot" and "Also sprach Zarathustra" as the only source for the Nietzschean argument is bogus because today we know that those were written by a syphilitic brain and are not representative if not given in context of the evolution of his ideas (and his illness).

The author of this article should go back to the beginnings of modern western social philosophy - the trip would reward him with the surprising discovery of the fact that we have way better arguments for the sanctity and equality of life and humans than Nietzsche, Dawkins and Singer together. They are the fringe men, an easy target for strawmaning. When I see we, I mean people who studied philosophy, not Atheists.

I can agree with the rest of the article, the analysis of Singer's view is biased, but very catchy, and intellectually honest.

Atheists = Christians.
" Les extremes se touchent " - A bonmot from the good part of the french revolution.

peace. interesting thread.

[Strong Atheist]

90. Welcome to DU!

:toast:

[charlie]

10. Oh, please

D'Souza anoints him "an intellectually honest atheist" as if that's some sort of rare bird, because Singer holds views that fits Dinesh's warped notion of atheism. He'll never allow that similarly horrid moral views have arisen from Christians.

Mr End of Racism is a fatuous little toad.

[stopbush]

15. Nervous? I don't think the new atheists even know who they guy is.

Reading what he's advocating, I don't think his thoughts will make much of an impression on the new atheists, let alone make them nervous.

[Occam Bandage]

19. Singer's been around for a long time as an impassioned voice of utilitarianism.

He's fairly well known, but not taken very seriously. After all, he thinks it's a moral outrage that anyone would put any amount of money towards themselves and not towards poverty relief. Of course, he doesn't mind selling people books, but hey...

[Democracyinkind]

21. He's a classic for sure. Legendary how he told Oxford's philosophy faculty

that it is immoral to study philosophy while the world is starving.
The guy is as self-righteous as it comes, but he is smart and has made a very worthy contribution to moral philosophy.

[Teaser]

26. OH SNAP

.

[Why Syzygy]

20. You might want to consider

that Singer is basing his version of morality on his adherence to atheism. It's logical. If there is no higher authority, then whatever HE says is his; whatever YOU say is your's. And so on x 6 billion.

[stopbush]

28. Why would it be logical to believe that there is a higher authority?

Such an idea is illogical on its face.

Singer - and perhaps you - ignore the role evolution has played in man developing a sense of morals. If one wishes to ignore the fact that our physical brain has developed beyond its primal roots - which still exist in each of us, BTW - and turn the clock back a few hundreds of thousands of years, before homo sapiens had developed even our basic parenting morals beyond that of, say, the earthworms, then, have at it.

The idea of "whatever he says is his, whatever you say is yours" was most assuredly a basic and overriding survival instinct for man at some far-distant point in our history. But man - through evolution - moved beyond such an instinct tens of thousands of years ago. For such a philosophy to be operative today, it would mean that parents would need to apply said philosophy to their children, as we did as a species millenia ago.

Are you really proposing that the typical parent living today needs to consult a so-called holy book and its "higher authority" to have a philosophy beyond "whsih, wysiy" when it comes to the way they regard and treat their own children? Are you serious in averring that a human parent living today, bereft of the questionable morals presented in the world's holy books has no instinctual and evolved sense of right and wrong to guide them through what's "right" for them and their children on such a basic level?

Please.

[Why Syzygy]

35. That isn't what I said.

You turned it upside down.

Would you care to offer evidence that evolution has equipped us with morality based on human dignity?

[stopbush]

40. Yes, there is evidence, but maybe not evidence to support what you propose.

There have been studies in animal behavior, anthropology and psychology that indicate that morals are not limited to homo sapiens (ie: rational beings to whom a god could appeal and influence in determining what is moral and what is immoral).

Some of this is discussed in the book The Evolution of Morality by Richard Joyce (MIT Press, 2006). On edit: hmm. I just found a review of this book by none other than Peter Singer. I wonder if he's the same guy under discussion in this thread. Here: http://ndpr.nd.edu/review.cfm?id=6383

You might also explore the studies in primate behavior done by Frans de Waal. His books, Primates and Philosophers, Our Inner Ape and Good natured: the origins of right and wrong in humans and other animals are a good staring point.

More recently, there's Marc Hauser's Moral Minds: How Nature Designed Our Universal Sense of Right and Wrong.

If you can't be bothered to read the books, then this NYTs article gives an overview and mentions the men above and their research:

Scientist Finds the Beginnings of Morality in Primate Behavior

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/20/science/20moral.html?_r=

I don't know what you mean by "human dignity." I don't think any of the above authors postulate that our morals evolved from a sense of dignity. Rather, it was a survival instinct that developed beyond a survival instinct.

Please don't try to frame the argument by tossing human dignity into the mix. That's not what any evolutionary biologist that I know of is proposing. Trying to set grounds rules that science doesn't embrace on this subject is like saying evolution didn't happen because no one's ever seen a butterfly evolve into an elephant in a single step. In both cases, the anti-evolution side is floating a canard that science doesn't propose.

[RaleighNCDUer]

30. i submit that is only important to authoritarians.

it's fucking randism, not atheism.

Try communitarianism - where what is best for the family, the community, the world dictates your philosophy. There is an inbuilt morality there - that which is bad for the community is immoral, that which is good for the community is moral. How does your act affect the family? Then, the community? Then, the world?

It is a biological imperative - the survival of the species. All morality is based on that.

[Mojambo]

17. "It is because we are created equal and in the image of God that our lives have moral worth..."

Rejected.

[Occam Bandage]

18. That's absolute bull. Secular Humanism exists.

Saying "no it doesn't, the only non-religious atheist moral system that works is Singerian hyperutilitarianism" is like saying "the only theist moral system that works is following Leviticus to the letter, including all the bits about stoning your children to death."

[mike_c]

22. it's an essentially circular argument anyway....

I mean, if we atheists are correct, then there simply is no god and never has been. Ethical systems still exist, however, so they must arise innately from human experience, not from supernatural prescription.

Nietzsche's contention misses the mark in several ways. First, god cannot "die" because god has never existed. Second, the notion that ethical constraints will erode after the "death" of god presumes that they arose initially while god was alive and are a direct consequence of god's pronouncements, desires, or whatever. But if god never existed, then we have to find another origin for ethics. If ethics are human constructs, then there is no logical reason to propose their disappearance in the absence of supernatural intervention unless one suggests that ethics are a consequence of the god delusion and nothing else. That seems pretty ridiculous to me.

[stopbush]

31. What he said!

[Why Syzygy]

36. Again

we are lacking any evidence from Darwin or any other that evolution has equipped us with a moral standard based on human dignity. Singer, for example, argues that animal and human life are equal. And, that humans have the ability to determine for themselves who is worth life and at what point they lose that status. Is he not evolved?

[stopbush]

60. You keep harping about morality "based on human diginity."

Why?

If our morality evolved over hundreds of thousands of years, then human dignity was not the basis of the morality. Survival was most likely the basis for such morals. Human dignity is a concept that was grafted onto the idea of morals tens of thousands of years after the process was well under way and highly evolved.

Your position in this regard would be like me asking you to show how the evolution of man's developing a written language was "based on a standard of computer technology."

[Why Syzygy]

64. Then you are saying

morality has a genetic basis?

[stopbush]

68. I'd say that the science is trending in the direction

that morality has a biological basis. There are many studies out there that support this, and the most recent studies further confirm the theory, rather than falsifying it. Do a search on Edward O. Wilson - he's written articles on the same.

I'm not suggesting (and neither are biologists) that one person's particular gene set predisposes them to morality more than another person's particular gene set would predispose them toward morality. They might be suggesting that the basis of morality is - at this point in our evolution as a species - hard-coded into the gene set that is now common to all.

I think more research will be done and needs to be done in the field. In the meanwhile, I see no reason to attribute what we don't as yet know about the development of our morals to "godditit."

Do you?

[Why Syzygy]

74. If it's

"evolutionary", it has to be genetic. That's the basis of evolution, right?

[stopbush]

77. I answered your question as it stood.

Two can play your little game.

You seem to answer questions by offering another question. Hard to have a discussion when it's all a one-way street.

[Why Syzygy]

78. You're the one attempting to wander off.

We were talking about the evolution of morality.

[laconicsax]

34. Wow, an opinion piece by Dinesh D'Souza!

And a poorly constructed straw man argument at that.

I didn't think that anyone on this site took D'Souza seriously--he's little more than a whiny, right-wing shill.

I'd like to address his argument on its merits, but it has none.

[Why Syzygy]

65. Right wing shill ...

I doubt you could find a liberal debating an atheist. If you know of any, please point me.

[laconicsax]

86. Not all theists who engage in the debate are whiny, right-wing shills.

D'Souza is among the worst of them.

This opinion piece by him is especially ironic since he believes that his God-inspired morality has lead him to be the homophobic misogynist he is.

[uberllama42]

93. Chris Hedges, author of "I Don't Believe in Atheists"

http://www.truthdig.com/about/staff/70

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/141656795X/truthdig-20

[Why Syzygy]

95. Thanks.

:thumbsup: Interesting reviews on amazon. Worth looking into.

Hedges is clear from the outset: there is nothing inherently moral about being either a believer or a nonbeliever. He goes a step further by accusing atheists of being as intolerant, chauvinistic, bigoted, anti-intellectual, and self-righteous as their archrivals, religious fundamentalists; in other words, as being secular versions of the religious Right.

[heidler1]

96. Sounds true to me. It's all human nature some good some bad.

It's mixed with an individuals instinctive needs, genes, ego, looks, strength, IQ, the 5 senses and environment. However, no one escapes, religious or not. If you have fun with it all, it's good. If you have no fun with what life dealt you, it's bad.

[heidler1]

97. Does that mean they would agree so therefore no debate is called for?

I suspect that this would be the case more often then not. I see myself as a Liberal Atheist.

[Why Syzygy]

98. Yes, pretty much.

The author, Daniel Radosh, of the book I've just finished (Rapture Ready),who calls himself a "humanistic Jew", concludes that the best way to overcome the RW fundamentalists is for the secular population to realize that liberal Christians are an ally in the battle for a moderate culture agenda. We agree on many issues. I've tried to make that point in this forum a number of times. Even though we may not agree on religion in specific, we are engaged in the same social struggles against fundamentalism. I highly recommend the book, and may find time to post another excerpt from his conclusions.

[heidler1]

99. IMO if the view that Liberal/Atheists and Liberal/Christians are politically similar; a giant step

in the meeting of the minds would be possible. In fact from what I read this is what is happening here in the USA today. I've thought for several years that Bush's Christian leadership's unintended consequence has given this idea a big push. I have not read or heard it called that though. Thanks.

[Silent3]

100. I have no problem making allies with theistic liberals.

In fact, I can't help but do so whenever I support and campaign for the vast majority of Democrats, who are either truly theists or are playing theists on TV because it's practically the only way to get elected, especially to high office, in this country.

My only problem with calls for being allies is when the implication is that being allies means toning down all vocal criticism of religion, when the idea is that being an ally means being a good, quiet atheist who either speaks of religion is the most careful, mincingly delicate and diplomatic of ways, or just shuts up about the subject entirely, even in a forum like this dedicated to the discussion of religion and theology.

[Why Syzygy]

101. We probably won't count on you then.

That's exactly what we want the fundamentalists to do, shut up already. We want them to quit trying to shove their visions on the entire populace. It is a small minority (on both sides) that keep the circus going. It's what the media focuses on for two reasons. One, the sensationalism of conflict. Secondly to cover the asses of our elected officials who foist extreme legislation on 100% of us based on the wailing of the few. Abstinence only sex ed for example. Did you realize that is the only curriculum qualified for FEDERAL funding? The fundamentalists have MONEY. They are a huge lobby effort that represents a very small percentage of real Americans.

We have cultural battles to win. We don't need anyone who wants to keep their soapbox sacred. (This forum gives only a glimpse of the real turmoil. There are no Christian fundamentalists here. Only atheist fundamentalists.)



Yesterday, a parade of public health experts told Congress that abstinence-only education doesn’t work and shouldn’t be funded.

In response, Rep. John Duncan replied “that it seems ‘rather elitist’ that people with academic degrees in health think they know better than parents what type of sex education is appropriate.”

Yeah, those elitists with their fancy degrees in actually knowing about stuff should back off and let parents have their say! And what do parents say? According to one poll, only 30% of American adults agree with the statement “the federal government should fund sex education programs that have ‘abstaining from sexual activity’ as their only purpose.” In contrast, 67% of adults agree with the statement “the money should be used to fund more comprehensive sex education programs that include information on how to obtain and use condoms and other contraceptives.”

Um, but that’s all adults. And they’re probably counting liberal college students. What about actual parents with kids in school. That’s right, “95% of parents of junior high school students and 93% of parents of high school students believe that birth control and other methods of preventing pregnancy are appropriate topics for sexuality education programs in schools.”

Still, Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, issued a statement calling yesterday’s hearings “biased” and a “sham.” Also yesterday, Perkins issued a statement calling Earth Day “a calculated attack on the sanctity of human life,” adding that “the crisis du jour is global warming, but even that is just another excuse to fund ‘Planet’ Parenthood and similar groups.” So he seems like a level-headed individual.

That last link is via Utne Reader, which also has an excerpt from a new book that may be of some interest, I Want to Be Left Behind.
http://getraptureready.com/blog/

[Silent3]

102. "We want them to quit trying to shove..."

Who's "we"?

What constitutes "shoving"?

I have no problem with people speaking their minds. I don't care to deny anyone, or even encourage anyone, to speak out any less than I want to be able to speak out myself. Is merely speaking out "shoving... visions on the entire populace"?

If you can't make, or can't be bothered to make, distinctions between open debate and, say, messing with science education or trying to make one's own religious morality the law of the land for everyone no matter what they believe, that's your problem.

[Why Syzygy]

103. I always regret

attempts to dialog with you. I don't play with impertinence.

[Silent3]

104. Impertinence?

Am I the unruly student and you're the teacher I'm supposed to defer to? What respect do you think you are due that I have denied you?

Am I failing to respect your right to blur the line between open debate and attempts to politically impose an agenda?

(I don't expect an answer, really. I expect you to pull the "I'm miffed and I don't have to deal with this" routine, which always conveniently involves not having to explain oneself, while trying to make it look like someone else is at fault for not automatically understanding.)

[Why Syzygy]

105. Understand the definition of the word for starters.

http://www.answers.com/impertinence

1. The quality or condition of being impertinent, especially:
1. Insolence.
2. Irrelevance.
2. An impertinent act or statement.

[Silent3]

106. Well, when you pass up ample and easy opportunity...

...to explain how what I said is "irrelevant" (irrelevant to what?), you'll have to forgive me if the general impression I get is one of haughtiness.

[Why Syzygy]

107. That

WOULD put me in the position of school teacher. No thanks. If you can't figure it out, I'll move along.

[Silent3]

108. Might as well...

...since you obviously have no substance to back up your huffing and puffing.

[Rob H.]

75. I love how PZ Myers refers to Dinesh D'Souza:

"The man with two 'duhs' in his name." :rofl:

[Jim__]

37. Has D'Souza accepted Nietzsche's claim that "God is dead"?

If he doesn't accept that claim, why does he accept Nietzsche's claim that the death of god leads inevitably to nihilism? If Nietzsche is not always right, does D'Souza state why Nietzsche's claim about nihilism must be correct? If Nietzsche is correct, why does D'Souza need to cite him at all? Why not just make the argument? It seems like D'Souza wants to grant Nietzsche a form of omniscience when he makes certain arguments, but withdraw that omniscience when Nietzsche make other claims. Does he justify this? If not, why would you attach any importance to his claim?

For example, D'Souza cites Nietzsche's claim that "All men are created equal" and "Human life is precious" as Christian ideas. Does D'Sousa square this proclamation with the former Chistian claim that the king rules by divine right? If so, I'd be interested to hear his argument.

I've listened to D'Souza speak before. I consider him an extremely sloppy thinker.

[Silent3]

38. I can't figure out if embracing Singer would mean...

...that we atheists would get to roast babies and drink puppy blood in general, using whatever babies and puppies we happen upon, or if we could only do those things with unfit babies and puppies, such as those born with genetic deformities.

Either way, I bet we get to have sex with all of them!

PS: Just throwing in the name "Nietzsche" doesn't make a "slippery slope" argument any more valid.

PPS: Do I really need the sarcasm smiley?

[BurtWorm]

39. What a load of crap.

If Singer can be used to stand for all atheists, then Fred Phelps can surely be used to stand for all Christians.

[cosmik debris]

44. The only thing that makes atheists nervous

Is proof of deities. Without that, you've got nothing.

The rest of that post is just some theist's fantasy. But theists frequently live in fantasy land.

[laconicsax]

45. Not just any theist--Dinesh D'Souza.

Talk about a deluded idiot.

[skepticscott]

46. Nietzsche's argument is bullshit

If any principles are more in conflict with the actual history of Western civilization than "All men are created equal" and "Human life is precious", I can't imagine what they would be. Our history is an endless tale of slaughter, oppression, slavery and discrimination, with no evidence of "Christian values" having any right to claim the moral high ground. And the notion that humans are incapable of discovering moral truths without them being dictated by someone claiming to channel a non-existent sky daddy is absolutely ludicrous.

[rrneck]

48. That's all you get.

That's what my friend's dad used to say to his kids. My friend was the youngest of nine, so he probably heard it a lot.

I don't understand why we have to pigeonhole all of these beliefs; and now non beliefs. As far as I am concerned, there is only one category, and every member of that category has the same thing in common - Deoxyribonucleic acid.

Somehow along the way, us monkeys learned the trick of reciprocity. And we learned how to remember, prognosticate and plan. We even acquired a theory of mind so that we could consider what others thought about things.

Call it a soul if you want. Attribute it to God if that gets you out of bed in the morning. For all I know there is a God and he planned it that way.

But there is no sacred text or exalted personage or special place that has any relationship to any deity. Those attributes are given to them by those who claim them. Those claims almost always end in sectarian bloodshed sooner or later. And it all starts with dividing ourselves up into factions who all claim special knowledge of the unknowable.

We should do what humans are designed to do: Remember who or what helped you and help them back, avoid those who hurt you, make the best plans you can and see if they work out. Be human, and let God take care of himself.

That's all you get.

damn typos

[Odin2005]

49. Singer makes this Athest wretch and heave with disgust

And as a person on the Autism spectrum I find Singer's Eugenicist tendencies despicable. A perfectly logically consistent ethical system is one that by definition cannot work because human moral psychology is inherently irrational and inconsistent, it is based not on reason but a fusion of instinct and culture. Research on the psychology of ethical dilemmas has proven that all "logical" explanations for why a certain action is right or wrong are merely rationalizations of said culture and instinct.

As for Nietzsche, I turn his BS on its head. IMO the Christianity-derived so-called "Slave Morality" is, in fact, the basis of the social justice that so permeates Western society (Case-in-point: MLK Jr. and William Jennings Bryan). That I am not a Christian makes no difference. The Graeco-Roman society Nietzsche so admired, outside a few Epicurean and Stoic philosophers, cared not one bit about social justice.

I am, like Dawkins, a "cultural Christian".

[laconicsax]

50. Then you're not being intellectually honest.

According to Dr. D'Souza, an atheist is only intellectually honest when they agree with his arrogant assumptions.

[Evoman]

56. Whether or not morals will decay without belief still doesn't change the fact that god and Jesus

probably don't exist.

I'm not going to start believing in Jesus just because society will break down if I don't eat some crackers or talk to the sky with my head bowed.

[Neo Atheist]

70. Why haven't Atheist followed Singer?

Because he's a shithead.

[JerseygirlCT]

80. From just this bit here, it sounds as though

his arguments aren't based on solid ground.

The idea that morality didn't exist before Christianity strikes this Christian as at best, laughable, and at worst, dangerously ignorant. It ignores quite a bit of pre-Christian history, not the least that of the Jews.

I don't think that the (postulated) demise of Christianity can be equated to the end of morality.

And are these ideas about individual-sanctioned murder, etc. just an attempt to be provocative (something I think Hitchens lives for, and likely, Dawkins, too, but that's an aside)?

[TZ]

82. Yay more broadbrushing of atheists!

Cause we all think and act exactly alike! Wanna know why alot of atheists resent believers?it's because of bullshit like this article..attention believers atheism isn't a different type of religion...:eyes:

[varkam]

85. D'Souza. 'Nuff said. eom

[uberllama42]

92. I agree n/t

[and-justice-for-all]

91. "an intellectually honest atheist." Ok...whatever.

I also must consider the source...christianity today..

[Evoman]

94. Yeah, that term makes me laugh when it's used by the most intellectually bankrupt people around.

Happened to me a couple of weeks ago....let me set the scene.

I studied evolution. I have a masters degree in biology (with concentration in genetics and evolution).

I have read a zillion papers on evolution. I have read half a zillion papers about geography, continental drift and phylogeography.

My uncle is a fundie christian who doesn't believe in evolution.

In a conversation about a "scientific paper" in some ridiculous non-peer reviewed journal, which showed "damning evidence" for a global-wide flood, I was called intellectually dishonest because I wouldn't seriously consider it. And because I was arguing against this article with all this "knowledge that was written by religion hating scientists".

*sigh*