Video About Problems With Atheism

[Jeremiahcp]

I said that Humanism has its roots in Christianity. Humanism is a complete worldview, not simply 'man should treat other man well'.

What it means to 'treat a man well' is also culturally dependent. It often only applied to men, of your tribe, not slaves, of the same status as you, etc.

In Sparta you treated a man well by killing him if he was a weak child as he would be a burden to society and it was more 'humane' to be dead than grow up as some pathetic weakling. You also treated him well by removing him from his family to undergo brutal military training from a young age. You treated him well by making him a catemite. You'd kill him if refused to murder a serf as part of his training. You'd expect him to kill himself if he besmirched his honour.

I'd be pretty surprised if Humanism had emerged from that society, wouldn't you?

I am not sure why you are pretending that the Ancient Greek and Roman cultures had no significant impact on Western justice, morality and religion, including Christianity. You seem to want to bend all of Western history around Christianity, when much of our culture goes back to the Ancient Greeks, include our laws and morality. Many even make the claim that Christianity borrowed from the Ancient Greeks.

I mean you can cherry pick the negatives if you like, but I could also talk Christendom and it is role in genocide and slavery in our history. Historically Christians have little moral high ground to stand on, their dogmatic "morality" has been used to commit some of the worst sins in Western history. If you are going to start dragging this back into history Christianity is going to look like a villain.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

What it means to 'treat a man well' is also culturally dependent. It often only applied to men, of your tribe, not slaves, of the same status as you, etc.

The most interesting part of all of this is that it is still the same idea... whether it is played out, in full, to our ideals or not. Still the idea of treating another man well - even if that idea is not "well treatment" by today's standards. So, even if "humanism" itself has roots in Christianity, it makes no difference. Something else would have filled its space had there never even been a Christianity. And that's my ultimate point. There will always be movements attempting to get us to treat one another "well". Religion is only one form that happens to rally people together more effectively than many others. Unfortunately, for all our "superior" intelligence, I feel that speaks more to our gullibility as a species than anything else.

 

[Augustus]

That probably happened, but at first glance it does not seem to have been very consequential. Are you thinking about anything in specific?

Explained briefly in post #93.

The things which are common to Christianity and Humanism are actually pretty rare.

If you are particularly interested the following book covers the influence of Christianity on the modern West in great detail.

‘The interiority of Christian belief – its insistence that the quality of personal intentions is more important than any fixed social rules – was a reflection of this. Rule following – the Hebraic “law” – was downgraded in favour of action governed by conscience. In that way, the Christian conception of God provided the foundation for what became an unprecedented form of human society.’ Christian moral beliefs emerge as the ultimate source of the social revolution that has made the West what it is...

At the core of ancient thinking we have found the assumption of natural inequality. Whether in the domestic sphere, in public life or when contemplating the cosmos, Greeks and Romans did not see anything like a level playing field. Rather, they instinctively saw a hierarchy or pyramid...

Augustine, following Paul, belief in the moral equality of men created a role for conscience, and that set limits to the claims of any social organization. This is the source of the dualism that has distinguished Christian thinking about society and government, a preoccupation with the different claims of the sacred and the secular spheres.
Inventing the Individual: The Origins of Western Liberalism - Larry Siedentop

 

[Augustus]

I am not sure why you are pretending that the Ancient Greek and Roman cultures had no significant impact on Western justice, morality and religion, including Christianity. You seem to want to bend all of Western history around Christianity, when much of our culture goes back to the Ancient Greeks, include our laws and morality. Many even make the claim that Christianity borrowed from the Ancient Greeks.

Humanism was a fusion of Greek rationalism and Christian ethics, just as Christianity emerged out of a fusion between Judaism and Hellenic philosophy.

Of course it grew from numerous influences, Christianity, Greek philosophy, industrialisation, etc.

I mean you can cherry pick the negatives if you like, but I could also talk Christendom and it is role in genocide and slavery in our history. Historically Christians have little moral high ground to stand on, their dogmatic "morality" has been used to commit some of the worst sins in Western history. If you are going to start dragging this back into history Christianity is going to look like a villain.

I think you mistake me for a Christian.

Anyway, the totality of Christian history is irrelevant to the specific question of whether or not Humanism was influenced by certain ideas from certain forms of Christianity.

What makes you think it remained completely uninfluenced by Christianity? Wouldn't that be quite improbable considering the similarities?

 

[jonathan180iq]

Per conversation with ADigitalArtist (below), what he calls transcendent is apparently talking about something built from culture, so that by transcendent he is talking about morality that transcends individual morality.

If that's truly what he's talking about, then he's not making an argument against atheism at all... I've never once heard an atheistic argument for morality that did not expand the individual moral creation into a social and cultural moral creation.

Atheistic understanding of morality, by his own argument, is "transcendent".

Well as you say he appears to believe values are negotiated not that they are objective, but he seems to think that radical atheists are against the established negotiated morality.

Again, I've never heard this without there being an implication that individual morality is what helps to sculpt and form "transcendent" group morality.

 

[Augustus]

The most interesting part of all of this is that it is still the same idea... whether it is played out, in full, to our ideals or not. Still the idea of treating another man well - even if that idea is not "well treatment" by today's standards. So, even if "humanism" itself has roots in Christianity, it makes no difference. Something else would have filled its space had there never even been a Christianity. And that's my ultimate point. There will always be movements attempting to get us to treat one another "well". Religion is only one form that happens to rally people together more effectively than many others. Unfortunately, for all our "superior" intelligence, I feel that speaks more to our gullibility as a species than anything else.

It is certainly possible that in an alternate world something resembling Humanism emerged via a different intellectual history. There's no reason to believe that there is only one possible route to any destination.

It is also possible though that in an alternate world something resembling Humanism never developed. There's no reason to believe that any complex belief system must necessarily arise. History has no teleology.

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

I am fairly more interested in the other part of the rationale that he didn't actually elaborate.
How does the existence of a 'transcendent value' precludes one from doing whatever he wants ?
Because it seems that people are doing whatever they want regardless of whether some 'transcendent value' exists.

My sound isn't working so I can't watch the vid today. (read that to say I spilled coffee on my ear buds and I'm too lazy to make the trip to wallyworld to secure another set, speakers? I hate em', lol, the last time I used them was....well better not go there suffice to say speakers are too non-private, heh hee)...


However, even as a Christian I agree with you, in the USA with a 70% plus or minus fifteen points God believing population we have the highest violent crime rate among the first world nations. If Believing in God actually influenced behavior the USA murder rate would be lower than it is, well maybe stats can be made to show anything if the statistical organizer and creator had an agenda. was the only quantifier for seems to enhance crime lol! The violent crime rate in the USA is a sad commentary on how the church priority and is why I stress over the packaging and application of evangelical mega church doctrine etc. The Church should minister an city sized area at the most, a neighborhood area would be far better.
; { >

 

[LuisDantas]

Explained briefly in post #93.

The things which are common to Christianity and Humanism are actually pretty rare.

I thought you claimed the opposite?

In any case, part of #93 is:

One of the points made in the video is that people who claim their morality grew out of rationality have internalised so many aspects of common mythology that they are unable to see things from outside that box. However, their morality is only rational within a particular culturally conditioned paradigm. What is 'rational' to one culture is completely irrational according to another.

(...)

Christianity: individuals held to account before God, directional history, equality before God, humility based, rational universe, belief system is universal, concept of Humanity.

Humanism: individual, directional (progressive) history, equality, humility based, rational universe, belief system is universal, concept of Humanity.

I take it that you mean to imply that Humanism inherited its moral values from Christianity?

That is doubtlessly true to some extent. However, the actual significance of that fact is seriously overblown in your analysis.

A far more accurate description would be that humanist values eventually overcame Christian tradition and renewed it from within to a significant extent.

If you are particularly interested the following book covers the influence of Christianity on the modern West in great detail.

Truth be told, I think the whole perception is inherently misguided. Christianity, as any other doctrine followed by actual human beings, can't help but learn something of morality proper as it follows its course. Some doctrines will deal with those learnings in more constructive ways than others, but none will be quite insulated from the real-world lessons that sustain moral thinking.

As it turns out, Christianity is fixated on phantom concepts and promises of an eternal world beyond death, so it is not particularly receptive to moral learning.

Knowing that, I can't honestly claim to have much curiosity about how exactly it eventually managed to improve itself morally.

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

No need to watch the video.
There are no problems with atheism.
But some atheists....they're a problem.

Great reply my friend! I said the same thing but say the religion of Christianity is fine, its a good number of fair weather/ignorant Christian's that harm our religion and by proxy our fellow man. Wasn't it M Gandhi, who is one of my hero's that said "Oh, I don't reject Christ. I love Christ. It's just that so many of you Christians are so unlike Christ." or words to that effect? I continually feel inadequate to claim the mantel of Christianity, maybe that's why I and some other Christians are so touchy about criticism of their faith?

; {>

 

[Revoltingest]

Great reply my friend! I said the same thing but say the religion of Christianity is fine, its a good number of fair weather/ignorant Christian's that harm our religion and by proxy our fellow man. Wasn't it M Gandhi, who is one of my hero's that said "Oh, I don't reject Christ. I love Christ. It's just that so many of you Christians are so unlike Christ." or words to that effect? I continually feel inadequate to claim the mantel of Christianity, maybe that's why I and some other Christians are so touchy about criticism of their faith?

; {>

I'm the opposite of Ghandi....
I reject Christ, but like most Xians.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I did view the video. But for a start I would deny that 'pure rationality' is even possible for a human nature that comes with 'reason' conflicted and corrupted with vast collections of bias and prejudice of both cultural and religious origin, in the attempt to secure and sustain a sense of identity. But there is such a thing as 'pure ignorance'. For while Western culture is embalmed with ideas of God provided by the presence of religion within culture, that presence is not grounded in any true transcendent reality, God, but in the all too human, contrived theological illusion of an unrealized potential, unable to demonstrate efficacy. Nor has that 'religious' presence contributed to the moral progress of civilization more than the secular as the body counts from both sides will attest. Both religious and atheist are just the two sides of a profound ignorance that is innate to human nature itself; prisoner to the limitations of that nature yet too dishonest with itself to confront the implications!

Thanks for viewing it and replying. Set aside the question of God vs atheism and think of the development of freedom and equality in the West. In my current (changeable too) lay opinion, Western society today is influenced by two unlikely parents Jewish idealism and Greek philosophy. There have been other influences, and we are talking about millennia which cannot be described in a post. Countries have almost always had a slave caste, but in mid 19th century a war against slavery was kindled in the West which spread partly through imperialism, partly because of automation and partly because people saw things could improve and that slavery was not necessary. The West has the rejection of slavery as a badge of honor, but this is mostly made possible by its Jewish heritage which provided ideas about free will that the thinkers post-enlightenment began to ponder, and it has its philosophical foundations which opened the gates of logic and reason to the masses. (Plus the printing press. That invention turned the world upside-down.) You can see a movement against slavery developing towards 1700, the foundations of which are fully thought through in the writings of Thomas Jefferson by 1800, though he did not obey his own fine reasoning against it. So in the West appeared the notion that slavery was evil and took root and eventually turned into a war against enslavement, and this past century is the century humanity truly began to fight against slavery. So...how do we guarantee that these ideas which developed so slowly can continue to be supported? As you say, human nature begins in ignorance and is easily reset to an ignorant state. Do we need to worry about atheism taught in universities as a default platform for ethics and morality?

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

To me this video isn't about the problems of atheism. He even said he's not arguing for a god or that morals arrived by a god. More that our morals arrive by cultural conditioning and a very specific history. If we removed the assumptions made by that history we'd arrive at moral nihilism. That there is a problems of assuming the value of self-sacrificial behavior is as a result of logical consideration. That the problem is moral virtue considered by Western culture transcends that Western culture.

I both agree and disagree with him. Without invoking a god, or a history which enforces objectivist ideals, I can make a utilitarian argument of why the aforementioned character shouldn't have done what he did. But but requires the other person to already have a value put in making the most successful human society model we can. I could argue that successful human societies maximize benefit and minimize suffering, and eroding that system through vigilantism ultimately hurts more people than it helps, but that's an axiomatic assgumption I couldn't hope to objectively demonstrate. So it's my subjective preference. That's why I'm not an objectivist.

Yes good observations and self introspection

>>>>>EDIT at 10:41 self introspection eh? redundant stuff ! Strike the word 'self' from that sentence! etc.<<<<<<<<

I agree with much of what you say. Without getting too deep in the philosophy of morals I believe I can make a case for why Christian meaning 'Jesus Christianity'* is better for civilization than morals relying on a secular origin. This idea is not speculative ideas but of observing moral standards created by secular governments. Simply put it seems to me that morals sans Christ created by a secular agent eventually degrade to nearly no moral standard. Recent history is full of examples where God hating or God neutral dictators become numb to human suffering or actually begin to enjoy it. Of course a case could be made for the Church's atrocities of the middle ages, but at least there was hope that mankind would improve, which they have, despite the corrupted Churches best intentions to kill what did not agree with them. Also the church was not practicing Jesus C! Without hope there is nothing, without God there is no hope for man IMO.

Define Jesus Christianity.......which is a term I use to describe Christians that adhere exclusively to the teachings of JC if its not in the bible and not said by Jesus its not Jesus Christianity.

; {>

 

[rabkauhallA]

He begins by discussing works by Dostoevsky, particularly Crime and Punishment. He then calls out Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins 'Radical atheists' on their assumption that humanity can proceed on a purely rational and irreligious basis. Dostoevesky seems to make the point (according to this prof) that if there's no transcendent value (God) then you can do whatever you want (morality is destroyed and chaos ensues). The prof asks his students "What the hell is irrational about me getting whatever I want from every one of you whenever I want it...and how is that more irrational than us cooperating so that we can have a good time of it?" He complains that radical atheists believe the human psychopathic tendency is irrational and therefore are misguided in thinking that pure rationality is a viable path forward.

Well I would say he makes an argument, and I wonder if folks here think he is accurately describing radical atheism and whether his argument is sound. The video rounds up to 6 minutes in length. Please at least skim it before replying, because I have not quoted the full text.

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

I'm the opposite of Ghandi....
I reject Christ, but like most Xians.

If that works for you have to do the program eh? I know what I am about to say pisses off many non-Christians more than calling girlfriend the C word in a vicious argument....ok maybe not that bad, (lol) but I am truly saddened when anyone rejects Christ out of hand, especially a friend. Anyway, you are still breathing so there is hope that you will become a new 'being' (you get to keep most of the old stuff too!) and I can pray....and pray, and pray...re the veins bulging yet? : )>

 

[Augustus]

I thought you claimed the opposite?

Sorry, that was possibly ambiguous.

Christianity and Humanism have a lot in common. The things they share are not common in the vast majority of belief systems throughout history.

I take it that you mean to imply that Humanism inherited its moral values from Christianity?

That is doubtlessly true to some extent. However, the actual significance of that fact is seriously overblown in your analysis.

A far more accurate description would be that humanist values eventually overcame Christian tradition and renewed it from within to a significant extent.

Where did these 'humanist values' magically appear from before they railed against hostile Christian tradition?

I don't get this circular logic that Humanism was created by 'humanist values' rather than being the product of the evolution and consequences of a particular philosophical worldview. It is not innate in every human, but was the product of a cultural environment. History does not follow a progressive path towards an end of history shaped by humanist values.

There is a reason that Secular Humanism developed in modern Europe rather than Confucian China or the Islamic world. There is a reason why it remains predominately a Western ideology.

I don't see this as being 'incidental'.

Truth be told, I think the whole perception is inherently misguided. Christianity, as any other doctrine followed by actual human beings, can't help but learn something of morality proper as it follows its course. Some doctrines will deal with those learnings in more constructive ways than others, but none will be quite insulated from the real-world lessons that sustain moral thinking.

What's 'morality proper'?

As it turns out, Christianity is fixated on phantom concepts and promises of an eternal world beyond death, so it is not particularly receptive to moral learning.

Knowing that, I can't honestly claim to have much curiosity about how exactly it eventually managed to improve itself morally.

The book is about the development of Western liberalism, not the evolution of Christianity. It discusses Christianity because liberalism didn't magically appear from immaculately conceived 'humanist values' and 'reason'.

 

[Revoltingest]

If that works for you have to do the program eh? I know what I am about to say pisses off many non-Christians more than calling girlfriend the C word in a vicious argument....ok maybe not that bad, (lol) but I am truly saddened when anyone rejects Christ out of hand, especially a friend. Anyway, you are still breathing so there is hope that you will become a new 'being' (you get to keep most of the old stuff too!) and I can pray....and pray, and pray...re the veins bulging yet? : )>

I'm pretty set in me ways.
Tis best to have low expectations of me.

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

Sorry about your sound card. I cannot say whether he's making an allegation against the atheist community without watching the whole lecture, and this is six minutes extracted from an entire lecture. I think to really establish it as a slander would require a lot more elbow grease.

Thanks for the kind words Brickjectivity,. It's a new PC too! Anyway, I am always searching for new Christian apologists as well as non-christian intellectuals etc that can incorporate emerging discoveries and new ideas with our millennia aged* religion. Even if they are diametrically opposed to what I believe.

* I believe Judaism is far older than claimed.

; {>

 

[icehorse]

It is certainly possible that in an alternate world something resembling Humanism emerged via a different intellectual history. There's no reason to believe that there is only one possible route to any destination.

It is also possible though that in an alternate world something resembling Humanism never developed. There's no reason to believe that any complex belief system must necessarily arise. History has no teleology.

I think that scientific progress and humanism go hand in hand. As we become more able to predict and control our universe, it seems natural that any ideas of needing a deity will diminish.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

I think you mistake me for a Christian.

Anyway, the totality of Christian history is irrelevant to the specific question of whether or not Humanism was influenced by certain ideas from certain forms of Christianity.

What makes you think it remained completely uninfluenced by Christianity? Wouldn't that be quite improbable considering the similarities?

"I think you mistake me for a Christian."

I never made that assumption.

"Anyway, the totality of Christian history is irrelevant to the specific question of whether or not Humanism was influenced by certain ideas from certain forms of Christianity."

I said nothing about the "totality". It is contradictory for you to start talking about the "roots" and then pretend the rest of the relevant history does not matter. Much of "humanistic" morality was shaped out of opposition to unmoral practices of "Christianity."

"What makes you think it remained completely uninfluenced by Christianity? Wouldn't that be quite improbable considering the similarities?"

When did I ever make that claim?

Personally, I think the lot of you are giving far too much credit to nurture. This after all is a debate of nature vs nurture. Treating history as if it moves in a straight line will not give a very clear picture of how morals are shaped. Morality is far more than just history.

The real root of human morality are the humans themselves. The nature of cause and effects tells us that culture cannot be the root of morality, as humans are the cause of culture. This means there is likely an inner core that has been shaping morality throughout history.

The idea that our morality is sourced from any religion is just naive; we are the source of all religious morality, we are the root of all morality, and we are the root of all religions. Which would means the true source of the atheistic morality is the human mind and human heart.

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

To my mind "transcendent" morality is based on cultural consensus. Actually, not even necessarily "cultural" - more "societal". And does anyone truly believe that if you removed "God" from the equation, that you would suddenly find people not coming to consensus on what is "moral?" Seriously?

For all their talk bashing atheists about having "no reasons" to remain moral because we don't believe in God, I feel that most believers would still find themselves "toeing the moral line" regardless whether they believed in God or not. They don't need it. They want to pretend we all need it, so they can feel more comfortable with their choice to make fiction a huge part of their lives, but they don't need it. Not truly.

My stance is that it almost doesn't even matter upon what your cultural basis for morality has been "built." People coming to consensus on right versus wrong is a concept older than any religion can lay claim to, and is something that has, and will continue to, outlive any organization of "religion".

I am more of an absolutist if not a rabid absolutist. There should be wiggle room, despite my well meaning fire and brimstone Christian friends everything ISN'T black and white.

On another point I agree that anyone can be a good morally correct person* without a deity looking over ones shoulder. I opined that a is less likely that a civilization will backslide into a orgasmic hedonistic cesspool of carnal and pleasurable bliss if they are in love mind body and soul without the XXX stuff lol.
*(using modern standards of right and wrong)

I was saying its far easier to stay with the program if they believe that deity exists. Its kind of like a cosmic seven step program where the meetings keep us in line, lol..

; {>