Antitheism?

[Augustus]

Are you crediting the church for science or the Enlightenment?

I'm crediting the Church and Christianity for playing a significant role in the long and complex process that led to the development of modern science and the Enlightenment in Western Europe.

There's a reason why it happened when and where it did. Although in an alternate universe it could have happened differently, in the one we have it happened this way.

 

[Augustus]

We might not have even needed the Enlightenment. 20/20 hindsight is meaningless, we have what we have.

And might never have had it at all. I agree that 'what if's are pretty meaningless. We have one history and in that there was a clear role played by Church and Christianity.

Does it serve us today?

Seems to serve a few billion of us at least.

The other question is if it doesn't serve us then why has it lasted so long?

Yes we need religion because we need people to be content with their position in life. We need the poor and downtrodden to believe that the will receive their reward in a next life, that the poor are more blessed that the rich. I am sorry, but humanity needs a content workforce. I really, really wish it didn't have to work that way, but until we find a better way to create a classless society, we need what religion offers. (And, like it or not, if "average" means anything, half the world's population has an IQ of 100 or less.)

Are you basically saying that "unintelligent people need religion", or am I misinterpreting your words?

Believe it or not, I'm a Humanists. I firmly believe that we can solve our problems. But we must do so with the help of religious beliefs. At least until we as a species can evolve beyond them for the betterment of ALL humanity.

I used to be a Humanist in my youth, fortunately I cured myself of it.

Humanists often have a condescending view of religion and the religious, yet their belief system is far more irrational.

It's just a new kind of salvation mythology with Christ being replaced by Reason (and often religion as the devil corrupting our 'true' nature). Just like the 2nd coming though, it never seems to arrive. Yet stronger still do the Humanists cling to their faith.

I am sorry, but as Seneca noted 2,000 years ago -- Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.

Seneca was a Stoic, he would have found Humanism a most curious philosophy. He believed we cannot solve our problems, we do not evolve as a species, what we gain will be lost again in the cycles of history.

The Greeks had a tragic view of history, not the utopian teleology that Humanists subscribe to.

 

[Curious George]

We might not have even needed the Enlightenment. 20/20 hindsight is meaningless, we have what we have. Does it serve us today?

Well that is not very logical. If we can only work with the present, we have no past from which to draw conclusions of what is good for the future. You cannot cherry-pick which parts of the past to include and which to ignore. Rather it is much better to look at the whole picture or as much as we can and make decisions from there.

 

[Thumper]

Well that is not very logical. If we can only work with the present, we have no past from which to draw conclusions of what is good for the future. You cannot cherry-pick which parts of the past to include and which to ignore. Rather it is much better to look at the whole picture or as much as we can and make decisions from there.

True. But I'm not going to argue with opinion. You want to argue that the church was the champion of science, then show where it ever went out of it's way to champion science with as least as much effort as it put into censoring it.

 

[Thumper]

And might never have had it at all. I agree that 'what if's are pretty meaningless. We have one history and in that there was a clear role played by Church and Christianity.

Can you give some examples of where the church went out of it's way to champion science? Not where it was neutral, but actually pushed it. And you can't really count citing that the scientist of the time were religious when you are talking about a time when to claim otherwise could mean death.

Seems to serve a few billion of us at least.
The other question is if it doesn't serve us then why has it lasted so long?

As I said, we need what religion sells.

Are you basically saying that "unintelligent people need religion", or am I misinterpreting your words?

Depends on what you mean by "need." Rulers need it too. ("Religion is excellent stuff for keeping the common people quiet." - Napoleon)

Are you trying to convince me that this shoe fits?

I used to be a Humanist in my youth, fortunately I cured myself of it.

And I was religion -- mom was Church of God & dad was Southern Baptist. Sang solo's in church until my voice changed. Could name all the books of O.T. & N.T. by the time I was 9. Studied the O.T. in Hebrew & the N.T. in Greek up until about half way through college and took debate classes on theological arguments such as Anselm, Aquinas, Pascal, etc.

Humanists often have a condescending view of religion and the religious, yet their belief system is far more irrational.
It's just a new kind of salvation mythology with Christ being replaced by Reason (and often religion as the devil corrupting our 'true' nature). Just like the 2nd coming though, it never seems to arrive. Yet stronger still do the Humanists cling to their faith.

Apparently you never understood what Humanism was about.

Seneca was a Stoic, he would have found Humanism a most curious philosophy. He believed we cannot solve our problems, we do not evolve as a species, what we gain will be lost again in the cycles of history.
The Greeks had a tragic view of history, not the utopian teleology that Humanists subscribe to.

Ad hominem. Figures.

 

[Augustus]

Can you give some examples of where the church went out of it's way to champion science? Not where it was neutral, but actually pushed it. And you can't really count citing that the scientist of the time were religious when you are talking about a time when to claim otherwise could mean death.

It wasn't necessarily by design, but through effects on society such as:

The idea that the universe was created led to philosophical beliefs that it must be rational and these rational laws could be discovered. The desire to understand these laws was a motivation for studying the sciences when they were often seen as having little practical application.

The Church paid for many people to be educated and encouraged study of philosophy, logic and natural philosophy.

The study of theology was a major driver behind the growth of universities and the ability of the less well off to be able to study there (by agreeing to join the clergy on graduation).

A job as a minister allowed educated people a living and ample free time to pursue scholarly enquiries. Members of the clergy are disproportionately represented in contributions to society (Reverends Bayes [Bayesian probability], Malthus [overpopulation], Cartwright [contribution to Industrial Revolution], Greenwell [pioneer of archaeology], etc.)

And I was religion -- mom was Church of God & dad was Southern Baptist. Sang solo's in church until my voice changed. Could name all the books of O.T. & N.T. by the time I was 9. Studied the O.T. in Hebrew & the N.T. in Greek up until about half way through college and took debate classes on theological arguments such as Anselm, Aquinas, Pascal, etc.

I'd quite like to have that background (apart from the Southern Baptist/Evangelical part)

Apparently you never understood what Humanism was about.

You just stated you belief that "I'm a Humanists. I firmly believe that we can solve our problems. But we must do so with the help of religious beliefs. At least until we as a species can evolve beyond them for the betterment of ALL humanity."

That is a salvation narrative like "when Christ returns peace and justice will reign", "Through the power of Reason we can reach a state where peace and justice will reign".

This optimistic and progressive view of history is the legacy of Christianity that remains in Humanism.

The problem with many Humanists is that they have convinced themselves that they have freed their minds from silly mythology, when in fact they have just created new ones from the Christian myth of salvation and the Socratic myth of Reason.

At least the Christians realised that it would take a miraculous supernatural agent to precipitate this change rather than thinking we could actually bring it about ourselves.

Ad hominem. Figures.

Another contribution to the RF tradition of hopelessly misunderstanding the meaning of certain generic fallacies.

An insult free and accurate description of why Seneca would have disagreed with Humanism is really not "ad hominem".

Do you disagree with the point made?

 

[Thumper]

It wasn't necessarily by design, but through effects on society ...

So religion was great for science, but it was by accident. Yep, got that.

....The problem with many Humanists is that...

So you as a non-Humanists are going to tell a Humanist what Humanism is all about. Now there's the height of hubris.

At least the Christians realised that it would take a miraculous supernatural agent to precipitate this change rather than thinking we could actually bring it about ourselves.

The incident of miracles is inversely proportional to the availability of camera phones.

You have a very low opinion of humanity.

Another contribution to the RF tradition of hopelessly misunderstanding the meaning of certain generic fallacies. An insult free and accurate description of why Seneca would have disagreed with Humanism is really not "ad hominem".

Any time you argue against the person making the comment instead of the comment itself, you are committing an ad hominem fallacy.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I'm crediting the Church and Christianity for playing a significant role in the long and complex process that led to the development of modern science and the Enlightenment in Western Europe.

There's a reason why it happened when and where it did. Although in an alternate universe it could have happened differently, in the one we have it happened this way.

Are you referring to a constructive role for the church in these matters? I think that we all credit the church for playing a role in the advent of science and the Enlightenment, but it is obstructionist, not facilitatory. From the start, the church has been an enemy of science. Copernicus knew this, which is why he waited until near death to publish his work on heliocentrism.

It's also why Bruno was burned at the stake for suggesting that ours was a solar system and that there were other solar systems in space.

And it's why Galileo was placed under house arrest for pointing out that the moons of Jupiter did not revolve around the earth.

It is why we had the Scopes monkey trials in the early 20th century.

And it's why we read the uninformed opinions of so many creationists today in venues like this forum. Here come three more now:

Just Accidental?
Just Accidental?
Why do some creationists think evolution = atheism?

In America, they are trying to reinsert creationism into the science curriculum.

Christianity is not a friend of science.

"Imagine the people who … are not ashamed to ignore, totally, all the patient findings of thinking minds through all the centuries since the Bible was written. And it is these ignorant people, the most uneducated, the most unimaginative, the most unthinking among us, who would make themselves the guides and leaders of us all; who would force their feeble and childish beliefs on us; who would invade our schools and libraries and homes. I personally resent it bitterly." - Isaac Asimov

"For centuries the church insisted that the Bible was absolutely true; that it contained no mistakes; that the story of creation was true; that its astronomy and geology were in accord with the facts; that the scientists who differed with the Old Testament were infidels and atheists. Now this has changed. The educated Christians admit that the writers of the Bible were not inspired as to any science. They now say that God, or Jehovah, did not inspire the writers of his book for the purpose of instructing the world about astronomy, geology, or any science. They now admit that the inspired men who wrote the Old Testament knew nothing about any science, and that they wrote about the earth and stars, the sun and moon, in accordance with the general ignorance of the time. It required many centuries to force the theologians to this admission. Reluctantly, full of malice and hatred, the priests retired from the field, leaving the victory with science." - Robert Ingersoll

Christianity is also antithetical to Enlightenment values such as rational skepticism and rational ethics. There is no place for a free citizen in the Christian Bible, which advises us to submit - man to God, subject to king, slave to slaver, and wife to husband.

And there is no place for man to make his own rules for living according to his senses of reason and compassion. He is ordered to submit to commandments that we are told come from a god, who is a dictator and serves as the model for the head of government and family.

Here's what an Enlightenment philosopher had to say about that arrangement:

"Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest." - Diderot

 

[Augustus]

So you as a non-Humanists are going to tell a Humanist what Humanism is all about. Now there's the height of hubris.

By your logic, it would be 'hubris' to explain what you see as being the problems with any ideology you are not a part of.

So what exactly am I misrepresenting? Humanists don't believe they have freed their minds of silly myths?

You have a very low opinion of humanity.

I'd say "evidence based". Humanists are big on evidence and reason aren't they?

What from science and history makes you believe you are correct?

Any time you argue against the person making the comment instead of the comment itself, you are committing an ad hominem fallacy.

I'm genuinely perplexed. Can you please highlight the personal attack in the following statement. It is about the beliefs of Seneca, who you were quoting:

Seneca was a Stoic, he would have found Humanism a most curious philosophy. He believed we cannot solve our problems, we do not evolve as a species, what we gain will be lost again in the cycles of history.
The Greeks had a tragic view of history, not the utopian teleology that Humanists subscribe to.

It would be more productive to discuss what you see as being wrong with this, rather than discussing imaginary fallacies.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Humanists often have a condescending view of religion and the religious, yet their belief system is far more irrational.

It's just a new kind of salvation mythology with Christ being replaced by Reason (and often religion as the devil corrupting our 'true' nature). Just like the 2nd coming though, it never seems to arrive. Yet stronger still do the Humanists cling to their faith.

Secular humanism is the most rational ideology in existence. If you like what science, rational ethics, and the modern, liberal, democratic state that guarantees personal freedoms have given you, you owe that to humanist philosophy.

The church dominated in the Middle Ages, the so called Age of Faith. Secularist philosophy pushed it aside beginning with the modernity and the Age of Reason, when secularist values emerged.

Which model of life appeals to you more? If you prefer the Middle Ages, it's off to the Tower of London with you - no trial, no representation, no charges or arraignment, no rights, and nobody knows where you are. That was the model for justice before the Enlightenment and humanist values, supported by the Christian Bible:

• "Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves."- Romans 13:1-2

• "Remind them to be submissive to rulers and authorities, to be obedient" - Titus 3:1

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

It wasn't necessarily by design, but through effects on society such as:

The idea that the universe was created led to philosophical beliefs that it must be rational and these rational laws could be discovered. The desire to understand these laws was a motivation for studying the sciences when they were often seen as having little practical application.

The Church paid for many people to be educated and encouraged study of philosophy, logic and natural philosophy.

The study of theology was a major driver behind the growth of universities and the ability of the less well off to be able to study there (by agreeing to join the clergy on graduation).

A job as a minister allowed educated people a living and ample free time to pursue scholarly enquiries. Members of the clergy are disproportionately represented in contributions to society (Reverends Bayes [Bayesian probability], Malthus [overpopulation], Cartwright [contribution to Industrial Revolution], Greenwell [pioneer of archaeology], etc.)

So you think that there were unintended benefits to organized religion? Then why should we value it? Those benefits that you named were available without religion. Do you think that man couldn't have come up with the idea of universities and hospitals without the inspiration of scripture, or that their Christianity played a role in the secular work of the Christians you named? What is Christianity's role in developing the liberal curriculum taught in those universities and the medical services administered in those hospitals?

I still see no benefit to organized religion, at least in the forms I'm used to: the Abrahamic religions.

• "The argument of Western antitheists is that Christianity imposes a significant burden on society. We say that it harms and diminishes people and their societies (families, communities, and nations). It impedes intellectual and moral progress, and it drains considerable resources from the community. These conclusions are the generalizations abstracted from thousands of separate events" - anon

Perhaps you are thinking of religion comforting people. If so, your talking about scratching an itch that it creates. Sure, if you grow up believing that there is a god watching over you that loves you and will take you to heaven, you will claim that that is a comforting thought.

But I grew up without those ideas, and have no need for such comfort.

• "It is no defense of superstition and pseudoscience to say that it brings solace and comfort to people…If solace and comfort are how we judge the worth of something, then consider that tobacco brings solace and comfort to smokers; alcohol brings it to drinkers; drugs of all kinds bring it to addicts; the fall of cards and the run of horses bring it to gamblers; cruelty and violence bring it to sociopaths. Judge by solace and comfort only and there is no behavior we ought to interfere with." - Isaac Asimov

• "The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality." - George Bernard Shaw

So why should we value this institution?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

At least the Christians realised that it would take a miraculous supernatural agent to precipitate this change rather than thinking we could actually bring it about ourselves.

Such Christians were wrong. What help have we received from any supernatural agent?

Did one tell us that if we harvested the secretions of the Penicillium fungus, that we could save lives with it? No-. Man discovered that himself with no help from the supernatural.

Did a god inform us about the electric power and how to harness it to make our lives better? No. Man did that as well.

We were once told that our rights come from our creator, but no supernatural agent did anything about our rights. Man languished through the Middle Ages, the time of the church's greatest power and influence, without them. Those rights were enumerated by men, won by men, and have been defended since by men. They are interpreted by men, and from time to time, modified by men.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The problem with many Humanists is that they have convinced themselves that they have freed their minds from silly mythology, when in fact they have just created new ones from the Christian myth of salvation and the Socratic myth of Reason.

We have no mythology. That role belongs to the theist. Our narratives are explanations for natural phenomena and our best set of rules to effect the optimal society which we define as the one that gives the most people the best chance to find happiness as they understand it. We have no need of paradisiacal gardens or global floods to understand or explain reality.

We also have no concept of salvation, just a vision of an increasingly better world. Humanism has been doing that for mankind for centuries. It's foundational precepts - rational skepticism, empiricism, and empathetic reciprocity (we actually mean it) are the basis for the life that you and I have been offered

And reason is not a myth. It is apparently an enemy to faith, however. All of the following come from the Bible or prominent Christian theologians

• Ecclesiastes 1:18 - "For in much wisdom is much vexation and he who increases knowledge increases sorrow

• 1 Corinthians 1:19 - "For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.

• 1 Corinthians 3:18 - "Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise."

• "There is another form of temptation, even more fraught with danger. This is the disease of curiosity. It is this which drives us to try and discover the secrets of nature, those secrets which are beyond our understanding, which can avail us nothing and which man should not wish to learn." and "Since God has spoken to us it is no longer necessary for us to think." - St. Augustine

• "The smallest of minds are the easiest to fill with faith" - Pope Leo X

• "Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but-more frequently than not-struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God."- Martin Luther

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The other question is if it doesn't serve us then why has [Christianity] lasted so long?

It serves the kings and clergy, and it is easy to enlist the cooperation of much of the general public. In Constantine's time, the message was propagated by the state under the threat of the sword. Civil law is still used to promote it. God appears in America's Pledge of Allegiance, its national motto, and on its currency. Until fairly recently, it was taught in public schools right after a state led group prayer. America's Department of Education is getting ready to divert public funds to voucher schools, a euphemism for religious schools, where creationism will be taught and evolution vilified.

The Crusaders and Conquistadores used the sword as well to promote this religion and spread it through Europe, Westen Asia and then the New World. The Inquisition used violence to defend the church at home.

Once Christianity reached a certain size and cultural hegemony, it was firmly established for centuries to come. All that is needed to make more Christians is access to children before they reach the age of critical thinking. The church understands that, which is why it is so intent on getting back into the public schools to gain access to the children not being indoctrinated at home by their parents.

Remove the state support, stop the indoctrination of children, and shine a light on what the church is actually doing as modern telecommunications has done, and the institution withers.

 

[Thumper]

By your logic, it would be 'hubris' to explain what you see as being the problems with any ideology you are not a part of.
...

No, it is hubris to try to tell a Humanist what Humanism is. Whether or not you agree with it is a separate conversation which can never be had until you stop trying to tell me what I think.

 

[Augustus]

We have no mythology. That role belongs to the theist. Our narratives are explanations for natural phenomena and our best set of rules to effect the optimal society which we define as the one that gives the most people the best chance to find happiness as they understand it. We have no need of paradisiacal gardens or global floods to understand or explain reality.

We also have no concept of salvation, just a vision of an increasingly better world. Humanism has been doing that for mankind for centuries. It's foundational precepts - rational skepticism, empiricism, and empathetic reciprocity (we actually mean it) are the basis for the life that you and I have been offered

I'll give you a proper reply later when I have more time, but what you are describing is a myth (or narrative fiction if you prefer). We make sense of the world through myths as we use these to ascribe value to things.

You just don't recognise you have a mythology. Ideology is a form of myth, a story we tell ourselves that is not objectively true but explains aspects of the world to us (and often gives us psychological comfort)

This 'increasingly better world' is a myth, history has no direction. When I say it is a 'salvation myth' it relates to the idea that society's problems can be solved, rather than recognising many of them as being an intractable product of our nature.

Technology increases progressively, we do not. That this long hoped for age of morality and reason never seems to arrive never seems to deter those who are assured it is just around the corner. A bit like the Christians who have been anticipating the 2nd coming for millennia.

And just like the Christians, you believe that your ideology is universal and the 'best way of life' just happens to coincide with the beliefs you already hold. Not to mention that it was your ideology that was responsible for all of these positive developments in the world.

 

[Augustus]

No, it is hubris to try to tell a Humanist what Humanism is. Whether or not you agree with it is a separate conversation which can never be had until you stop trying to tell me what I think.

If you read it again, you'll see that I didn't tell you what you think. You keep seeing imaginary slights everywhere.

"Many Humanists..." may or may not include you. You could explain what you think was wrong instead of just resorting to defensive rants.

Have you found where the "ad hom" insult was yet that you claimed I made?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Seneca was a Stoic, he would have found Humanism a most curious philosophy. He believed we cannot solve our problems, we do not evolve as a species, what we gain will be lost again in the cycles of history.

How do those ideas relate to the quote provided: "Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful."? Do you disagree with it? You might object to calling atheists "wise," but surely not the other two claims. Religion is still useful to leaders:

"White evangelical Christians set a new high water mark in their support of Republican candidates by giving Donald Trump 81% of their votes, according to the 2016 exit polls" Donald Trump and the Transformation of White Evangelicals

Look at how easily manipulated they are:

"Back in 2011, consistent with the “values voter” brand’s insistence on the importance of personal character, only 30% of white evangelical Protestants agreed with this statement. But this year, 72% of white evangelicals now say they believe a candidate can build a kind of moral wall between his private and public life. In a shocking reversal, white evangelicals have gone from being the least likely to the most likely group to agree that a candidate’s personal immorality has no bearing on his performance in public office. Today, in fact, they are more likely than Americans who claim no religious affiliation at all to say such a moral bifurcation is possible."

They quite obviously think what they're told to think.

The Greeks had a tragic view of history, not the utopian teleology that Humanists subscribe to.

Where does this utopia stuff come from? Utopia is the promise of Christianity for the saved.

Humanism seeks to make this the best world it can be. Nobody is expecting that to be utopian.

So you find fault in wanting to improve life? Or do you think that we can't do that?

 

[Thumper]

...So what exactly am I misrepresenting? Humanists don't believe they have freed their minds of silly myths?....

You said Humanism includes a "salvation narrative like 'when Christ returns peace and justice will reign'". NO, not even close.

And you speak of the "optimistic ... legacy of Christianity". You mean things such as all men are born sinners who must constantly seek forgiveness. Real optimistic!

Even your statement that "Humanists often have a condescending view of religion and the religious" betrays a total lack of any understanding of Humanism which constantly works to ensure everyone may live a life of dignity in a world where universal human rights are respected and protected. But we do oppose apostasy laws, blasphemy laws, and state-endorsed religious doctrine.

 

[Thumper]

...
I'm genuinely perplexed. Can you please highlight the personal attack in the following statement. It is about the beliefs of Seneca, who you were quoting:

Seneca was a Stoic, he would have found Humanism a most curious philosophy. He believed we cannot solve our problems, we do not evolve as a species, what we gain will be lost again in the cycles of history.
The Greeks had a tragic view of history, not the utopian teleology that Humanists subscribe to.

It would be more productive to discuss what you see as being wrong with this, rather than discussing imaginary fallacies.

Let me try to make this as clear as I can --
An ad hominem is "a logical fallacy in which an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument", in this case Seneca.

An appropriate argument would be addressed to the comment from Seneca which I quoted, not to argue about the character of Seneca himself.

Why is this so hard to understand?