pop morality

[TheRocketSurgeon]

Sure, but we're talking about two different things now. I'm not advocating for prayer in the classroom during the school day (I could, but I'm not). I thought your objection was to public prayer (when other people can see you) in general since you quoted the passage from Matthew.

My objection was to public prayer, especially at events where there is a captive audience, so to speak, such as at schools. The point of having those meetings at the schools, to have the activities in the public square, is to be seen by others-- group pressure makes a very effective tool for proselytizing. Thus the verses.

Actually, the reason that some people pray in school buildings is because their church cannot afford to build or buy a building, yet. Another reason would be the obvious desire to ask for God's blessing upon all gathered/participating. Now, there is something to really turn the atheist's crank. Imagine that asking for blessings that would benefit others.  

No. Even assuming for a moment that your god is real and really, really wants us to pray so he'll do the things we want done for us, such as blessing a service, you can ask for that blessing individually without making it a part of the service. Doing it as part of the ceremony makes it look more official. Do you really think that if 95% of the people at a service in, say, Decatur, Georgia, are praying silently at the outset of every ceremony, that God would find that less pleasing than spewing "God, oh God, love us, because we love youuuuuu!" from a stage? The point is to be seen by men, not by God, who sees into your heads (according to your mythology).

I do have two questions that have come to mind as I am typing.

1. As a FORMER Christian, is there any one Christian that you actually admire for his or her faith and witness to the gospel? Obviously, I'm not asking if you agree with him or her...just whether you can see any good anywhere in Christianity.

2. Regardless of your current feelings about God, do you acknowledge that the Christian moral code (doing unto others, loving your neighbor as yourself, etc.) has positive benefits for society as a whole...including for those who are not believers but living among those who are?

Thanks.

1. Not for their "witness to the gospel", no, but I do admire those Christians who quietly go about making the world a better place by following the instructions of the man called the Christ. While I've known many Christians I've admired for their dedication to the servcie of others as a result of their beliefs, one amazing nun (still alive) and a Monsignor (now deceased) come to mind, in particular. I'm also an admirer of the many Christians who are scientists that advance our knowledge of the universe and ourselves, both historical and current, from Isaac Newton to Gregor Mendel to Francis Collins (and many more, of course).

2. No, I don't "acknowledge the Christian moral code" because it's not specific to Christianity. Christians did not make that "do unto others" thing up, either. And while in some cases religion makes people do wonderful things for others, it doesn't require religion to do so... indeed, there's quite a bit of evidence that the converse is true, from the dearth of atheist prisoners compared to their representation in the country to the studies that show atheist kids are better to others than the children of the devout. Many of the things we attribute to Christianity's influence on culture (yes, I've read the Catholic papers that claim Christianity made the modern age of civil rights possible) are just as attributable to the increase in literacy overall, as the printing press and non-Latin translations of the Bible made people want to learn to read and then keep reading... but there are numerous pagan influences as well, most especially that of the Vikings via the Danelaw, which was nearly half of England until unified in the 11th century by the Norman invasion.

In modern society, I think most of the rights we enjoy (including the 1st amendment) were fought for and won against the influence of the Papacy, and later against the WASP influence on and domination of American culture, and our nation is significantly better for it. Even in this century/millennium, not a day goes by that I don't see something that religion hasn't turned sour because of the ideologies it espouses... just last Friday, I overheard someone talking about a "faggot" and gleefully chortling over how he'll go to hell. While I know that homophobia is hardly unique to Judeo-Christian thought (the Romans had a conservative half to their society, just as we do today, and many of our ideas about gays come from those Roman prejudices as enhanced by Christianity, after they made that their official religion), and people claim it's "just another sin", I've never heard anyone talk about divorcees the way they talk about gays. Ever. Practically every day I go into public, I head something that makes me shake my head and think of what a better world it could be if religion wasn't so pervasive... and if I get to thinking about the 1000 years we lost in the Dark/Middle Ages, in which religion practically controlled all Europeans' thought, and the fact that we could be 1000 years more technologically advanced (same thing happened with the Muslims, after a brief period of enlightenment that ended in the 11th century CE), I get sick to my stomach.

And before you whip out that old trope about atheist communists -- I am officially sick to death of having to have that conversation with people who refuse to listen -- and the horrors committed by Stalin, Mao, etc., I should make it clear that I consider that form of communism to be just as much a religion as yours, albeit a godless one like Taoism or Buddhism.

[athrock]

Without 401Ks, and sometimes even pensions and Social Security, to support them, the nation’s priests and religious brothers and sisters are living their retirement years with limited resources to pay for the basic needs many laypeople take for granted upon leaving the workforce.[color=#000000][size=medium][font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]

But as opposed to too many laypeople they aren't left to rot in the streets. The Miami pensioners aren't exactly the majority. I'm sure they don't live the highlife in their old age, but as opposed to many others, they at least have the security of being cared for till their last breath.

So, we're in agreement that retired Catholic clergy are not living the high-life in their old age after 60-70 years of service to the Church? And we agree that these priests and sisters are being cared for by those whom they served?

Well, this has turned out better than I had hoped for. 

[athrock]

Sure, but we're talking about two different things now. I'm not advocating for prayer in the classroom during the school day (I could, but I'm not). I thought your objection was to public prayer (when other people can see you) in general since you quoted the passage from Matthew.

My objection was to public prayer, especially at events where there is a captive audience, so to speak, such as at schools. The point of having those meetings at the schools, to have the activities in the public square, is to be seen by others-- group pressure makes a very effective tool for proselytizing. Thus the verses.

Well, unless there are a bunch of neighborhood kids roaming the halls unsupervised on Sunday mornings, I wouldn't exactly say that anyone is at risk of being evangelized when a small congregation rents the cafeteria of a local high school for a couple of hours on a Sunday morning.

Actually, the reason that some people pray in school buildings is because their church cannot afford to build or buy a building, yet. Another reason would be the obvious desire to ask for God's blessing upon all gathered/participating. Now, there is something to really turn the atheist's crank. Imagine that asking for blessings that would benefit others.  

No. Even assuming for a moment that your god is real and really, really wants us to pray so he'll do the things we want done for us, such as blessing a service, you can ask for that blessing individually without making it a part of the service. Doing it as part of the ceremony makes it look more official. Do you really think that if 95% of the people at a service in, say, Decatur, Georgia, are praying silently at the outset of every ceremony, that God would find that less pleasing than spewing "God, oh God, love us, because we love youuuuuu!" from a stage? The point is to be seen by men, not by God, who sees into your heads (according to your mythology).

You're against prayer in public. Got it.

I do have two questions that have come to mind as I am typing.

1. As a FORMER Christian, is there any one Christian that you actually admire for his or her faith and witness to the gospel? Obviously, I'm not asking if you agree with him or her...just whether you can see any good anywhere in Christianity.

2. Regardless of your current feelings about God, do you acknowledge that the Christian moral code (doing unto others, loving your neighbor as yourself, etc.) has positive benefits for society as a whole...including for those who are not believers but living among those who are?

Thanks.

1. Not for their "witness to the gospel", no, but I do admire those Christians who quietly go about making the world a better place by following the instructions of the man called the Christ. While I've known many Christians I've admired for their dedication to the servcie of others as a result of their beliefs, one amazing nun (still alive) and a Monsignor (now deceased) come to mind, in particular. I'm also an admirer of the many Christians who are scientists that advance our knowledge of the universe and ourselves, both historical and current, from Isaac Newton to Gregor Mendel to Francis Collins (and many more, of course).

You forgot Fr. LeMaitre, the Catholic priest who proposed the Big Bang theory. And though he is not a Catholic, Collins was appointed to the Pontifical Academy of Science by Pope Benedict XVI.

But this is a good answer. Are there one or two people you might name specifically for their service to the poor and social causes?

2. No, I don't "acknowledge the Christian moral code" because it's not specific to Christianity. Christians did not make that "do unto others" thing up, either. And while in some cases religion makes people do wonderful things for others, it doesn't require religion to do so... indeed, there's quite a bit of evidence that the converse is true, from the dearth of atheist prisoners compared to their representation in the country to the studies that show atheist kids are better to others than the children of the devout. Many of the things we attribute to Christianity's influence on culture (yes, I've read the Catholic papers that claim Christianity made the modern age of civil rights possible) are just as attributable to the increase in literacy overall, as the printing press and non-Latin translations of the Bible made people want to learn to read and then keep reading... but there are numerous pagan influences as well, most especially that of the Vikings via the Danelaw, which was nearly half of England until unified in the 11th century by the Norman invasion.

In modern society, I think most of the rights we enjoy (including the 1st amendment) were fought for and won against the influence of the Papacy, and later against the WASP influence on and domination of American culture, and our nation is significantly better for it. Even in this century/millennium, not a day goes by that I don't see something that religion hasn't turned sour because of the ideologies it espouses... just last Friday, I overheard someone talking about a "faggot" and gleefully chortling over how he'll go to hell. While I know that homophobia is hardly unique to Judeo-Christian thought (the Romans had a conservative half to their society, just as we do today, and many of our ideas about gays come from those Roman prejudices as enhanced by Christianity, after they made that their official religion), and people claim it's "just another sin", I've never heard anyone talk about divorcees the way they talk about gays. Ever. Practically every day I go into public, I head something that makes me shake my head and think of what a better world it could be if religion wasn't so pervasive... and if I get to thinking about the 1000 years we lost in the Dark/Middle Ages, in which religion practically controlled all Europeans' thought, and the fact that we could be 1000 years more technologically advanced (same thing happened with the Muslims, after a brief period of enlightenment that ended in the 11th century CE), I get sick to my stomach.

And here I see a fundamental flaw in your thinking, Rocket. I understand what your are objecting to concerning "religion" but that's not the real issue, is it? The problem is not that we have too much religion...the problem is that we have too few genuine disciples. Gandhi said, “I like your Christ; I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” He has a good point.

So, what if real discipleship were MORE pervasive?

And before you whip out that old trope about atheist communists -- I am officially sick to death of having to have that conversation with people who refuse to listen -- and the horrors committed by Stalin, Mao, etc., I should make it clear that I consider that form of communism to be just as much a religion as yours, albeit a godless one like Taoism or Buddhism.

Okay. I am officially on notice regarding this.

[athrock]

if I get to thinking about the 1000 years we lost in the Dark/Middle Ages, in which religion practically controlled all Europeans' thought, and the fact that we could be 1000 years more technologically advanced (same thing happened with the Muslims, after a brief period of enlightenment that ended in the 11th century CE), I get sick to my stomach.

I have always been puzzled by this "Dark Ages" claim, so I decided to Google the phrase "Not so dark ages".

An atheist historian by the name of Tim O'Neill wrote an interesting book review on the "dark ages" that might make you feel less queasy:

The Dark Age Myth: An Atheist Reviews “God’s Philosophers”
http://www.strangenotions.com/gods-philosophers/

In this article, O'Neill writes:

One of the occupational hazards of being an atheist and secular humanist who hangs around on discussion boards is to encounter a staggering level of historical illiteracy. I like to console myself that many of the people on such boards have come to their atheism via the study of science and so, even if they are quite learned in things like geology and biology, usually have a grasp of history stunted at about high school level. I generally do this because the alternative is to admit that the average person's grasp of history and how history is studied is so utterly feeble as to be totally depressing.

So, alongside the regular airings of the hoary old myth that the Bible was collated at the Council of Nicaea, the tedious internet-based "Jesus never existed!" nonsense, or otherwise intelligent people spouting pseudo-historical claims that would make even Dan Brown snort in derision, the myth that the Catholic Church caused the Dark Ages and the Medieval Period was a scientific wasteland is regularly wheeled, creaking, into the sunlight for another trundle around the arena [emphasis added].

O'Neill seems like a pretty sharp guy, and you are one of the few in this forum who might appreciate his views. I look forward to hearing what you think of his article.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

Well, I majored in biochemistry, but I minored in history, so... yeah.

Also, you left out this paragraph from the article:

Which is precisely what they proceeded to do. Far from being a stagnant dark age, as the first half of the Medieval Period (500-1000 AD) certainly was, the period from 1000 to 1500 AD actually saw the most impressive flowering of scientific inquiry and discovery since the time of the ancient Greeks, far eclipsing the Roman and Hellenic Eras in every respect. With Occam and Duns Scotus taking the critical approach to Aristotle further than Aquinas' more cautious approach, the way was open for the Medieval scientists of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries to question, examine, and test the perspectives the translators of the Twelfth Century had given them, with remarkable effects:

Emphasis mine, of course. Also, it's well known that the Church preserved much of the ancient knowledge (by being almost the only literate people other than the nobility, for one, except in isolated instances like Charlemagne's attempt to resurrect the concept of the university) that we have today, and that the collapse of the Roman Empire led to people having little to do other than serve their Lords/Kings in a hardscrabble existence that led to people becoming accustomed to being told what to do and what to think (because they really had little choice), a role the clergy were happy to adopt.

O'Neill has carefully crafted a strawman by ignoring the rise of religious domination of thought--"How many angels can dance on the head of a pin", indeed--which led to the collapse of the flowering of thought in Greek culture (which spread though Europe and lands which would later become Muslim via the Roman appropriation of their philosophies/religion, prior to the rise of Christianity as the state religion) and focusing on the fact that society eventually recovered from that collapse via men who were religious thinkers because there really was no other type.

That's not to claim the Greeks or Romans were somehow magically different from people, today... Socrates was famously executed for his corruption of students by having them question the gods. I certainly agree that many of the known events of persecution have been mythologized and are often misused, as pointed out, but I'm afraid I think the book O'Neill champions verges on hyperbole in the other direction. The battle between magical thinking (this-and-that happen because of god/gods) and philosophical naturalism predates Christianity, but the rise of Christianity/Catholicism brought it to impressive heights, and the battle continues to this day.

As for "real discipleship", I'd just be happy if people started listening to the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, and started ignoring the cult of Paulianism which is the predominant form of Christianity today, both Protestant and Catholic. That said, I really, really don't feel like engaging on the issues you wish to contest. I've been there, done that, and I'm sick to death of it. I'll maintain my primary role here-- setting cultists straight when they try to tell atheists why/how we think, and arguing with Biblical literalists about their misconceptions/ignorance regarding science.

[Drich]

Do you not understand your involvement in this scientific discussion was apart of a larger 'science conspiracy' discussion from the beginning?

Seriously?!?! This whole thing started because one of you claimed 'science' is not a study on fiction. That everything is always 100% Fact grounded reality, while God is not.

Which the very idea outlines my 'faith in science' argument.

Everything in science is data.  That's all it is.  We have no data on god.  No mathematical measurements, gravitational waves, no radio waves, no video, no audio, no nothing.

Sure we do. Science has simply reclassified them as something else. According to the bible All of creation is 'data' on God. Science (which again can be manipulated) says the opposite is true. Yet never explains why. Why must God and science be an either or?

After all if God did indeed create the known universe, then would He has not put in place all the different 'things' we are receiving data from?

[TheRocketSurgeon]

Everything in science is data.  That's all it is.  We have no data on god.  No mathematical measurements, gravitational waves, no radio waves, no video, no audio, no nothing.

Sure we do. Science has simply reclassified them as something else. According to the bible All of creation is 'data' on God. Science (which again can be manipulated) says the opposite is true. Yet never explains why. Why must God and science be an either or?

After all if God did indeed create the known universe, then would He has not put in place all the different 'things' we are receiving data from?

Science has done nothing of the sort. Science has no position on God or gods or goddesses or any other magical (supernatural) thing, because it deals only with what is demonstrable in the natural world. 

We certainly understand your position, which is that if God is the Creator of the Universe™, then it follows that everything is "data on God". The problem with that position is that we have no actual data to show that God is the cause of any of it, only a bunch of philosophical arguments which suggest that such is the case... and just as many which say the opposite.

What she means is that we have no hard evidence that demonstrates any "magical" cause, and we no longer have a reason to think there is such a thing, except for those who belong to religions which state such things in their scriptures. Science is methodologically looking for the natural causes of things, and using that method to demonstrate why such-and-such happens. Humans like to attribute anything they can't understand to "the gods". Once, we thought that Thor caused the sound of thunder... now, we know that it's air being rapidly superheated by the pulsing of electron flow to and from the gound, and causing a reverberating shock wave.

Science cannot be manipulated because it's a method. It can be improperly followed by individual researchers, but that's what Peer Review is for, and why we continue to investigate every theory through repeated testing to ensure the best accuracy humans can manage. For "science" to manipulate data as you're suggesting, there would have to be some conspiracy of scientists worldwide (in countries which compete with one another in every way) who were all on a "Crusade" (forgive the use of the word) to do so. For the reasons stated above, this is simply impossible. That fact becomes particularly obvious if you realize that a large percentage of scientists are religious, many of them Christian... as you yourself pointed out when listing famous Catholic scientists.

As Xenophanes put it, "Men create gods in their own image. [...] If cattle and horses, or lions, had hands, or were able to draw with their feet and produce the works which men do, horses would draw the forms of gods like horses, and cattle like cattle, and they would make the gods' bodies the same shape as their own."

[athrock]

Well, I majored in biochemistry, but I minored in history, so... yeah.

Also, you left out this paragraph from the article:

Which is precisely what they proceeded to do. Far from being a stagnant dark age, as the first half of the Medieval Period (500-1000 AD) certainly was, the period from 1000 to 1500 AD actually saw the most impressive flowering of scientific inquiry and discovery since the time of the ancient Greeks, far eclipsing the Roman and Hellenic Eras in every respect. With Occam and Duns Scotus taking the critical approach to Aristotle further than Aquinas' more cautious approach, the way was open for the Medieval scientists of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries to question, examine, and test the perspectives the translators of the Twelfth Century had given them, with remarkable effects:

Emphasis mine, of course. Also, it's well known that the Church preserved much of the ancient knowledge (by being almost the only literate people other than the nobility, for one, except in isolated instances like Charlemagne's attempt to resurrect the concept of the university) that we have today, and that the collapse of the Roman Empire led to people having little to do other than serve their Lords/Kings in a hardscrabble existence that led to people becoming accustomed to being told what to do and what to think (because they really had little choice), a role the clergy were happy to adopt.

O'Neill has carefully crafted a strawman by ignoring the rise of religious domination of thought--"How many angels can dance on the head of a pin", indeed--which led to the collapse of the flowering of thought in Greek culture (which spread though Europe and lands which would later become Muslim via the Roman appropriation of their philosophies/religion, prior to the rise of Christianity as the state religion) and focusing on the fact that society eventually recovered from that collapse via men who were religious thinkers because there really was no other type.

That's not to claim the Greeks or Romans were somehow magically different from people, today... Socrates was famously executed for his corruption of students by having them question the gods. I certainly agree that many of the known events of persecution have been mythologized and are often misused, as pointed out, but I'm afraid I think the book O'Neill champions verges on hyperbole in the other direction. The battle between magical thinking (this-and-that happen because of god/gods) and philosophical naturalism predates Christianity, but the rise of Christianity/Catholicism brought it to impressive heights, and the battle continues to this day.

As for "real discipleship", I'd just be happy if people started listening to the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, and started ignoring the cult of Paulianism which is the predominant form of Christianity today, both Protestant and Catholic. That said, I really, really don't feel like engaging on the issues you wish to contest. I've been there, done that, and I'm sick to death of it. I'll maintain my primary role here-- setting cultists straight when they try to tell atheists why/how we think, and arguing with Biblical literalists about their misconceptions/ignorance regarding science.

Duns Scotus? Blessed John Duns Scotus, O.F.M...the Catholic? 

[athrock]

Sure we do. Science has simply reclassified them as something else. According to the bible All of creation is 'data' on God. Science (which again can be manipulated) says the opposite is true. Yet never explains why. Why must God and science be an either or?

After all if God did indeed create the known universe, then would He has not put in place all the different 'things' we are receiving data from?

Science has done nothing of the sort. Science has no position on God or gods or goddesses or any other magical (supernatural) thing, because it deals only with what is demonstrable in the natural world. 

We certainly understand your position, which is that if God is the Creator of the Universe™, then it follows that everything is "data on God". The problem with that position is that we have no actual data to show that God is the cause of any of it, only a bunch of philosophical arguments which suggest that such is the case... and just as many which say the opposite.

Really?  

Your dismissive attitude toward the philosophical arguments leads me to believe that you simply don't appreciate the force of their collective weight.

What she means is that we have no hard evidence that demonstrates any "magical" cause, and we no longer have a reason to think there is such a thing, except for those who belong to religions which state such things in their scriptures. Science is methodologically looking for the natural causes of things, and using that method to demonstrate why such-and-such happens. Humans like to attribute anything they can't understand to "the gods". Once, we thought that Thor caused the sound of thunder... now, we know that it's air being rapidly superheated by the pulsing of electron flow to and from the gound, and causing a reverberating shock wave.

And hooray for science...doing what it can within the limited sphere in which it can say anything at all.   Thank God that it does for the betterment of us all.

But as you say, science is "looking for the natural [emphasis mine] causes of things" because it is unavoidably BLIND to their supernatural causes.

Did you hear me? Science is BLIND when it comes to the supernatural causes of things. Consequently, it can say nothing of value there.

As Xenophanes put it, "Men create gods in their own image. [...] If cattle and horses, or lions, had hands, or were able to draw with their feet and produce the works which men do, horses would draw the forms of gods like horses, and cattle like cattle, and they would make the gods' bodies the same shape as their own."

Indeed. Zeus is very much like a superhuman, isn't he? And this is undoubtedly because he was created in the image of the men who worshiped him.

The God of Christianity is nothing like that, Rocket, and if you think otherwise, then your "God" is too small.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

Actually, my issue with the Christian god is that he's pathetically small and petty. Seriously, you're literally claiming that Yahweh, the alleged creator of hundreds of billions of galaxies with hundreds of billions of stars (around which presumably are numerous habitable planets) is so in agreement with the prejudices of one tribe of Bronze/Iron Age goatherders that he's deeply concerned with how the humans have sex with each other, and other similar nonsense... and wants to make sure some humans bother others about it.

Again, you could see this as clearly as you see it for Zeus and Shiva and Thor, if only you weren't conditioned otherwise.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TxjrHPHypA