Unforeseen Consequences
by BradfordA Wall Street Journal article entitled Look Who's Irrational Now begins:
"You can't be a rational person six days of the week and put on a suit and make rational decisions and go to work and, on one day of the week, go to a building and think you're drinking the blood of a 2,000-year-old space god," comedian and atheist Bill Maher said earlier this year on "Late Night With Conan O'Brien."
On the "Saturday Night Live" season debut last week, homeschooling families were portrayed as fundamentalists with bad haircuts who fear biology. Actor Matt Damon recently disparaged Sarah Palin by referring to a transparently fake email that claimed she believed that dinosaurs were Satan's lizards. And according to prominent atheists like Richard Dawkins, traditional religious belief is "dangerously irrational." From Hollywood to the academy, nonbelievers are convinced that a decline in traditional religious belief would lead to a smarter, more scientifically literate and even more civilized populace.
In just two paragraphs the writer has illustrated fundamental behavioral earmarks of New Atheism: condescension, stereotyping, promoting misinformation and false claims about the effects of religious beliefs on society. The next two paragraphs are revealing:
The reality is that the New Atheist campaign, by discouraging religion, won't create a new group of intelligent, skeptical, enlightened beings. Far from it: It might actually encourage new levels of mass superstition. And that's not a conclusion to take on faith — it's what the empirical data tell us.
"What Americans Really Believe," a comprehensive new study released by Baylor University yesterday, shows that traditional Christian religion greatly decreases belief in everything from the efficacy of palm readers to the usefulness of astrology. It also shows that the irreligious and the members of more liberal Protestant denominations, far from being resistant to superstition, tend to be much more likely to believe in the paranormal and in pseudoscience than evangelical Christians.
So empirical data indicates that religion can inhibit superstition. Not a surprise. Judeo-Christian scriptures are openly hostile to practices like palm reading and attempts to communicate with the dead. Moreover there exists a belief that humans are biologically wired toward spirituality; the God gene being a more colorful although less biologically accurate phrase. Realistic approaches would assume that humans would try to satisfy spiritual urges and focus on healthy approaches. There was this:
The Gallup Organization, under contract to Baylor's Institute for Studies of Religion, asked American adults a series of questions to gauge credulity. Do dreams foretell the future? Did ancient advanced civilizations such as Atlantis exist? Can places be haunted? Is it possible to communicate with the dead? Will creatures like Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster someday be discovered by science?
The answers were added up to create an index of belief in occult and the paranormal. While 31% of people who never worship expressed strong belief in these things, only 8% of people who attend a house of worship more than once a week did.
It looks very much like the prevalence of beliefs in standard religions like Christianity and Judaism is inversely related to beliefs in the occult and paranormal. Those holding standard religious beliefs are less likely to have occultic and paranormal beliefs. Nonbelievers have oversimplified the likely consequences of a decline in traditional religious belief.
September 27th, 2008 at 12:06 am
[...] Unforeseen Consequences By Bradford "What Americans Really Believe," a comprehensive new study released by Baylor University yesterday, shows that traditional Christian religion greatly decreases belief in everything from the efficacy of palm readers to the usefulness of … Telic Thoughts - http://telicthoughts.com [...]
Pingback by Free Religion News and Blogs » Blog Archive » - christianity religion — September 27, 2008 @ 12:06 am
September 27th, 2008 at 9:39 am
What a horridly written article. He fails to even mention that the "New Atheists" dislike all forms of superstition, including new-age mysticism. Its not like they only rail against "mild superstition" while encouraging "extremist superstition." The idea that superstition is the cure for even worse superstition is simply absurd. I can accept that religion might work much like a flu shot, injecting a little stupidity to inoculate against full blown stupidity. But in my view superstition is more like trans fats than salt: some salt is required but too much is harmful whereas zero is the only healthy amount of trans fats.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — September 27, 2008 @ 9:39 am
September 27th, 2008 at 10:13 am
Its not like they only rail against "mild superstition" while encouraging "extremist superstition."
They rail against Christianity, yet science as we now know it as a system of thought is linked to Christianity historically and theologically. It's telling that the very things that scientists who study Nature tend to look down on are not looked down on in many forms of Nature based paganism. Magic is a stigma word to scientists, if they call something "magic" it's a great bugaboo and so on. Yet this probably derives more from Christian attitudes about magic than the supposed scientific impossibility of pagan "magick" which would actually be difficult to prove in scientific terms. Astrology is looked down on, again this probably derives more from the roots of science in Christianity than in actual evidence that time and the planets have no effect. And so on.
The "New Atheists" attack Christianity but want to save a type of scientia/knowledge derived from or associated with it. Daniel Dennett actually admits this point given the historical evidence but argues that we can essentially harvest the seeds of good ideas/science grown from a field of bad ideas/superstition.
All lines of historical evidence that such a harvest is impossible or can't last long and this is the pattern that seems to hold true now as well, methodological naturalism naturally builds a philosophy of naturalism which then descends back into forms of Nature based paganism. Note the post-Christian culture of the Weimar Republic in which Nazism fermented based on a return to "scientific" forms of Nature based paganism which was ultimately associated with pseudo-science, superstition and the occult. The pattern seems to be that science begins by being rooted in Christian assumptions but then science is said to only be rooted in methodological naturalism, which naturally and gradually tends to build a philosophy of naturalism that undermines Christianity itself to the point that science is turned into a form of Nature based paganism. In the end it's not surprising to see the emergence of all the old occult/"hidden" practices and superstitions typical to the type of paganism that Christianity originally did away with.
Comment by mynym — September 27, 2008 @ 10:13 am
September 27th, 2008 at 10:16 am
That's not the point of the article. It's not about what NAs like or dislike.
It's more like they rail against things they do not like and label all such things superstitious. That's an old tactic. Attach a negative word to concepts you dislike.
More spin. If NAs are to maintain any grip on reality a good starting point would be the recognition that our biological impulses influence our behavior. Our behavior is not a function of what NAs find acceptable.
Thanks for your personal opinion.
Comment by Bradford — September 27, 2008 @ 10:16 am
September 27th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
I don't know why, but this article reminded me George Orwell [author of 1984]: “For two hundred years we had sawed and sawed and sawed at the branch we were sitting on. And in the end, much more suddenly than anyone had foreseen, our efforts were rewarded, and down we came. But unfortunately there had been a little mistake. The thing at the bottom was not a bed of roses after all, it was a cesspool full of barbed wire. […] It appears that amputation of the soul isn't just a simple surgical job, like having your appendix out. The wound has a tendency to go septic.”
Comment by neddy — September 27, 2008 @ 12:55 pm
September 27th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
Todd, did you know the following about prominent NA Sam Harris?
The best-selling author of "The End of Faith" may argue against Christianity, but he is also supportive of phenomena such as reincarnation and ESP, and calls for "compassionately killing" the "Muslim hordes."
Comment by Bradford — September 27, 2008 @ 1:58 pm
September 27th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
neddy:
Yes. That Orwellian desire to remake others, to conform to our own conceptions, has parallels to New Atheist views.
Comment by Bradford — September 27, 2008 @ 2:04 pm
September 27th, 2008 at 3:35 pm
Hey all:
I think in all the culture war posturing we are missing what might be important scientific finding.
Does this study support idea that “spirituality” is innate in humans? What does this mean for the future of atheism? Is Materialism an idea doomed to fail because it’s is against human nature?
Is some form of ID destined to win in the end?
I would be interested to see what the usual suspects have to say about these questions.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — September 27, 2008 @ 3:35 pm
September 27th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
fmm:
It's quite likely that "spirituality" is to some extent innate. Nevertheless, IMO religion is pretty much doomed in the long run (or maybe not-so-log run) since its main attraction - the promise of immortality - will become moot when technology makes immortality really possible. Likewise, the idea of a immaterial soul will evaporate when the first brain transplant or "uploading" of the mind into a different medium succeeds.
That is, unless Wall St collapses.
Sorry if this is not the answer you were hoping for.
Comment by Raevmo — September 27, 2008 @ 3:51 pm
September 27th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
Raevmo,
Let me get this strait, atheism would be doomed to fail if left to its own devices but it will be saved just in time by a couple of technological miracles.
If we were to change a couple of details this sounds just like some of the things I’ve heard premillennialist preachers say.
“My side is loosing but help is on the way”
Anyway:
I think you would be surprised to learn that I’m also a fan of Ray Kurzweil style speculation. I just don’t share his presuppositions.
For me radically increased lifespans right now with the explosion of Christianity in the world might be a sign that the millennium is about to dawn.
And although I don’t expect to see an "uploading" of the mind such a thing would not shake my faith. Believing in a immaterial soul is not a requirement for my religion.
So even if the singularity arrives us fundamentalists will still be crashing the party.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — September 27, 2008 @ 4:26 pm
September 27th, 2008 at 4:50 pm
It is not conclusive evidence but it does support that.
It means atheism is stuck with the idea that an innate biological tendency must be explained while incorporating the assumption that there is nothing to the innate belief. IOW, nature selected an irrational trait that has no reality basis. Another trick pony argument.
Yes.
Comment by Bradford — September 27, 2008 @ 4:50 pm
September 27th, 2008 at 7:06 pm
fmm:
Well, not quite doomed, but giving up on the idea that they will not die and get to see their friends and relatives on the other side, that's quite a psychological hurdle for a lot of people, slowing down the spread of atheism. Once religion loses the monopoly on immortality, that'll be a mighty blow to belief in the afterlife.
I didn't know Christianity is exploding. Sounds like some kind of IED. But then, Al Qaeda are also millenarialists.
Why is that? Your body will simply be resurrected in the end days? Funny, I just read today that in Greece it's legal now to get cremated. The local church opposed this because they think it will interfere with resurrection.
Comment by Raevmo — September 27, 2008 @ 7:06 pm
September 27th, 2008 at 7:43 pm
Raevmo:
ROTF!!! [wipes eyes] Good one, Raevmo. The idea that anybody would trust their "immortality" to Wall Street! Hahahaha… [choke, cough]
Comment by Joy — September 27, 2008 @ 7:43 pm
September 27th, 2008 at 7:58 pm
Bradford:
Why do most people think they are above average? What's your explanation?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...
Comment by Raevmo — September 27, 2008 @ 7:58 pm
September 27th, 2008 at 8:02 pm
Raevmo,
Have you read Tipler? He thinks that when the singularity comes the first thing we will want to do is resurrect our relatives and he expect us to give the credit to God for this ability. Like I said it’s just speculation but it’s interesting none the less.
Do you have any evidence of the spread of atheism? It seems to me that it is collapsing in most places as witnessed by many studies like this one.
I would guess from a anthropological viewpoint it might look like that. Pez does a good job of introducing the phenomena here .
That’s what the hope of Christianity has always been
The last two lines of the apostle’s creed read
[I believe In]……….
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting.
Amen.
Nothing about the immaterial soul. It’s a philosophical question not a theological one as far as I can tell.
I know lots of Christians who are against cremation. They believe it shows disrespect for creation and leads to a mystical “all is one” view of the soul aka Hinduism. I’ve never hear anyone say that cremation will interfere with resurrection though.
It’s a silly idea given the fact that many Christians martyrs were burned or eaten by lions etc. not to mention the ole dust to dust thing. But given the diversity of beliefs in the Church nothing surprises me.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — September 27, 2008 @ 8:02 pm
September 27th, 2008 at 8:35 pm
fmm:
Yeah, I read Tipler's The Physics of Immortality. Quite entertaining. Did you read the Appendix for Scientists? It's almost half the book. I thought the resurrection in his theory amounts to being part of a giant computer simulation at the end of time (the omega point), or something like that. Sounds pretty crazy to me.
I don't know if atheism is on the upswing or not right now on a global scale, I'm not keeping track. Compared to a few decades ago it seems to be increasing in Europe and the US. It's probably going down in formerly communist countries.
But like I said, I'm optimistic that in the long run most people will come to their senses and abandon religion.
It would be nice, but I'm afraid it's just wishful thinking.
Me neither. But the diversity in beliefs suggests to me that most or all of it is nonsense.
Comment by Raevmo — September 27, 2008 @ 8:35 pm
September 27th, 2008 at 9:57 pm
So atheism is true because Raevmo turns out to be quite the science fiction fanboy? Gimme a break.
Comment by Jean — September 27, 2008 @ 9:57 pm
September 27th, 2008 at 11:51 pm
Raevmo wrote:
Except when that diversity is in the belief of Darwinism. Then it reinforces the truth of it.
It all depends on whose ox is getting gored, of course.
(wait for the question guys… wait for it…)
Jean wrote:
That's the observation that he denied in the other thread but readily affirms here - it's okay to believe in something preposterous as long as it doesn't come from Christianity. Christian heaven and immortality: old and busted; Kurzweilian heaven and immortality: new hotness. Take that vitamin C, Ray, we're going to the mothership!
Comment by angryoldfatman — September 27, 2008 @ 11:51 pm
September 28th, 2008 at 1:07 am
What I've never understood about these sort of atheistic mockers (and they have every right to be such) is that since there is no transcendent purpose to our existence, what the hell difference does it make what anybody does, including those with whom they disagree? Let the space-god worshippers drink his blood, let the snake handlers fondle their snakes, let the dirvishes whirl, and whoever do whatever. What difference does it make? Doesn't Maher realize that within a few decades he'll be dead? And that within 100 years everyone on the planet alive today will be dead? Maher and his ilk get nothing but a gigantic and yawn infused "so what?" from me. I mean, really now, Bill. Shut the fuck up. And that goes for you too.
Comment by kornbelt888 — September 28, 2008 @ 1:07 am
September 28th, 2008 at 8:41 am
kornbelt888,
No, because twenty thousand years from now when hyper-evolved scientists who have already conquered death find a way to use quantum tunnelling to perform extreme archaeology and go back in time and gather up dead people in order to resurrect them and upload their consciousness into sophisticated wetware machine interfaces for eternal post-entropic life, Mecha-Raevmo and others will want to have 'I told you so!' rights when they telepathically mock anyone for believing in anything so silly as resurrection or life after death.
And supposedly, Bill Maher's not even an atheist. He denied it outright in 2002, only claims to be an 'apatheist' now, and seems to insist (contra most atheists, frankly) that there's no way to be certain about God or afterlife one way or the other. Therefore his big problem with religions is that they preach certainty unwarranted. Naturally, this all doesn't apply when someone is certain about a topic he agrees with.
Oddly, I could get behind Maher's premise. But as usual, that 'you don't know the truth' routine is shell-gamed into 'but in essence, I do'. Meanwhile, Maher (from what I read) rags on "western medicine", claims certain links between flu vaccines and Alzheimers, etc. Could you imagine if any prominent religious person knocked western medicine, much less aspirin or flu shots, even if it was for entirely non-religious reasons? They'd be placed in the same category as Tom Cruise. Meanwhile, Maher essentially parrots what is Deepak Chopra's line on medicine, and no one blinks about his rationality.
Comment by nullasalus — September 28, 2008 @ 8:41 am
September 28th, 2008 at 10:25 am
nullasalus:
Don't worry, we will leave you in your grave. Or maybe, just maybe, you'll get to inhabit the microchip in a toilet-o-matic robot. But only if you behave from now on. So there.
I think you'll find that Maher has been on the receiving end of mockery by the "skeptical community" quite a bit for his insane ideas about medicine. Do the Google and find out for yourself.
Having said that, I enjoy watching Maher's Real Time show, in which he mercilessly mocks the wingnuts, and once in a while he ridicules religious lunacy. It's almost as good as the Daily Show with John Stewart, but not quite.
Comment by Raevmo — September 28, 2008 @ 10:25 am
September 28th, 2008 at 10:36 am
The Kurzweilian future is doomed by the Butlerian Jihad. And by janitors who knock plugs out of the wall.
"LOOK WE HAVE SUPERPOWERS NOW HAHA!! I CAN RESHAPE MYSELF INTO ANY FORM WHATSOEV…" *zzzzzzt* *darkness*
Comment by angryoldfatman — September 28, 2008 @ 10:36 am
September 28th, 2008 at 10:51 am
Raevmo,
MECHA RAEVMO ACTIVATES SARCASM MODULE.
MECHA RAEVMO INITIATES RELIGIOUS HOSTILITY SUBROUTINE.
MECHA RAEVMO CELEBRATES FREE-THINKING AS SCHEDULED.
I did, and didn't find all that much. And what I did find tends to be vastly more forgiving of Maher than would be the case if he were differently placed in this little culture-war. Can't have it be the case that one of the popular representatives of The Faith also is rather nutty, right? They're still smarting from Dawkins' repeated inanities.
Anyway, don't let me distract you from your work. There's a rapture.. ah, technological singularity to bring about, you know. Spread the gospel.. damnit, I mean hyperlinks. Let them know that God.. I MEAN superior artificial intelligence.. is on the way.
Goodness, it's hard to tell which is which of those beliefs…
Comment by nullasalus — September 28, 2008 @ 10:51 am
September 28th, 2008 at 1:40 pm
nullasalus wrote:
MECHA RAEVMO SCANNING COGNITIVE MODULES
MECHA RAEVMO SETS "GOD" "SAINTS" "HEAVEN" TO %REJECTED_MODULES
MECHA RAEVMO SETS "KURZWEIL" "SCIENTISTS" "SINGULARITY" TO %ACCEPTED_MODULES
MECHA RAEVMO SWAPS %REJECTED_MODULES FOR %ACCEPTED_MODULES
MECHA RAEVMO MODULE SCAN COMPLETE BLEEP BLORP
Comment by angryoldfatman — September 28, 2008 @ 1:40 pm
September 28th, 2008 at 11:35 pm
Kornbelt888 wrote:
Apparently, we as humans are “hardwired” in some way to seek some kind of higher purpose and meaning for our existence. Maybe these particular atheists are just following those natural impulses. In other words, they find meaning in trying to convince other people who think that there is some kind of ultimate meaning that they are wrong.
The irony is that these self described enlightened ones claim to be the voices of reason yet in their arguments they do not rely on reason. Rather, they rely on scorn, ridicule and contemptuous condescension. I’m curious, is that how they became atheists? Someone demeaned, berated, and ridiculed them till they saw the light. Do atheists run “boot camps” with overbearing type personalities that whip the young recruits and wannabe’s into shape?
Personally, ( as a non atheist) I think these people give atheism a bad name. About 2000 years ago the Apostle Paul gave some advice that I think would be very helpful to modern atheists. He wrote that if the central claims of the Christian faith are not true, (there is no resurrection, no transcendent supernatural power etc.) then “faith is futile…we are to be pitied more than all men” (I Cor. 15:17,18) He then goes on to say if Christianity is not true then we should “eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.” (v 32)
Why don’t you atheists follow that advice. Instead of preaching at people that don’t agree with you, why don’t you throw wild parties with good food and drink, beautiful (and willing) women, great music and entertainment and invite everybody and anybody that is interested? That’s the way to spread your unbelief. This heavy handed preaching is for the religious types. Why are you imitating them? In my opinion, that comes across as really stupid. And, nothing to me is sillier than when a stupid person tries to convince me that he or she is smarter than anyone else.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — September 28, 2008 @ 11:35 pm
September 28th, 2008 at 11:59 pm
Hi Nullasalus,
You wrote..
This is surprising coming from you. Do you really think "most atheists" believe they can prove a negative?
Even Richard Dawkins has said that technically his is agnostic about the existence of God and fairies in the garden.
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 28, 2008 @ 11:59 pm
September 29th, 2008 at 12:05 am
Hi John A Designer,
You don't have to believe in God to love your fellow man and try to make a lasting difference in the world.
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 29, 2008 @ 12:05 am
September 29th, 2008 at 12:46 am
Thought Provoker,
"Technically" speaks volumes, and the subject is different besides. Equating God with 'fairies in the garden' is that ignorant, pissant step that Maher (at least in the past) claimed to be unwilling to take. For all I know his views have changed, but there really is a difference between 'The human condition keeps us from able to make confident declarations about God and afterlife' and 'You can't prove a negative, maybe God exists, maybe fairies do too, lol'.
Yes, you do. Particularly if you want any of those sentiments to have any real meaning beyond 'Damn, I sure sound spiritual.'
Besides, where do you get off saying you don't have to anyway? Did you Learn The Truth when someone wasn't looking?
Comment by nullasalus — September 29, 2008 @ 12:46 am
September 29th, 2008 at 11:18 am
The Skeptics Guide to the Universe gives this WSJ article a really good treatment both on their blog and on their latest podcast episode.
Comment by AaronSTL — September 29, 2008 @ 11:18 am
September 29th, 2008 at 11:33 am
Nullasalus?
Is that you?
Your last comment was definitely not a jab-and-duck tactic. It looked like you put some weight behind it.
Good Job.
In response to John A. Designer's rant I offered "You don't have to believe in God to love your fellow man and try to make a lasting difference in the world." to which you replied…
I will admit to some mixing of philosophy and objective science in my statement, but I suggest there is tangible evidence of non-religious people being charitable up to and including leaving endowments in their will. It seems pretty clear that the intent of these actions are to "make a lasting difference in the world."
I am also willing to admit to being imprecise in my statement. As it happens, the "God" I believe in equates to what other people would think of as "Love". So it is contradictory to argue that one doesn't have to believe in Love to love his/her fellow man. I even thought about this as I was going to bed last night. I should have said something to the effect of…
"I suggest you don't have to believe in a Holy Trinity or an Islamic Allah in order to love your fellow man and try to make a lasting difference in the world."
I'm not sure that is much better as far as your complaint is concerned, but it is a statement of my belief, my Truth if you will.
I don't expect it to be everybody's truth. I am definitely not suggesting it be incorporated in the pledge of allegiance, taught in public schools or have a special day be set aside each week to re-enforce its correctness.
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 29, 2008 @ 11:33 am
September 29th, 2008 at 11:38 am
If by "good treatment" you mean "angry whining and sarcasm", sure.
Watson can't bring herself to consider that "irradicating" religious belief doesn't seem to yield much rationality itself. Or, more threateningly, that religious worldviews (of which there's not just one, but multiple - another thing she doesn't seem to get) may encourage certain healthy kinds of skepticism. Believe it or not, just because her frantic social niche loves calling themselves "skeptics" doesn't mean others can't be skeptics, or that the "skeptics" always are.
The best response the article has can be summed up as: "Okay, fine, there may be a lot of irrational atheists/irreligious. But we think there are a lot of just as or more irrational religious people. Just their irrationality is in different areas, and also it's more dangerous we bet!"
Not exactly the most rational response. But then again, that supports the statistics.
Comment by nullasalus — September 29, 2008 @ 11:38 am
September 29th, 2008 at 11:59 am
TP,
I could care less how you estimate my "tactics". Still treating discussions like fights, I see.
I never said non-religious people were never charitable, so this goes in the "that's nice" category. But it takes on a qualitatively different meaning in a decidedly atheist worldview - and far too many use the language of objective meaning and values without being called to task for it, or for realizing just what they're doing. I'm willing to believe that plenty of people don't follow their philosophies through to their natural conclusion. By Dawkins' own admission, he's unable to be consistent on certain subjects - it just doesn't work.
No, you call your favored actions "love". If you meant to say "You don't need God to do whatever you personally judge to be right in an utterly subjective sense", I'd have no quarrel. Just as you can "make the world a better place" so long as that only means "make changes you personally like, because all concepts of 'better' are utterly personal".
It's like saying "You can fill your gas tank with water". It sounds like you're saying that you can drive a car using water as a fuel. In reality, that's not what's being said, unless you're remarkably ignorant.
Oh, boo freaking hoo. During the height of the Cold War, the country founded by Christian-sympathetic Deists with a philosophy of God-given rights made a solidarity gesture in response to the great atheist regime that was doing the same thing to religious people. Oh wait, no. They weren't putting 'There is no God' or 'No gods, only men' on their currency. They were killing them, knocking down churches, and generally persecuting them in the serious sense of the word.
Forgive me if I regard this oft-repeated concern as having the same amount of importance as, say, 'Whether putting a dog on Pennsylvania license plates will make cat lovers jealous'.
Comment by nullasalus — September 29, 2008 @ 11:59 am
September 29th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
From the link:
No bobo. The point is New Atheists are as "irrational" as anyone else when judged by the standards they themselves created. Hoisted by their own petard.
Comment by Bradford — September 29, 2008 @ 3:25 pm
September 29th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
[...] Unforeseen Consequences - Telic Thoughts. [...]
Pingback by “Unforeseen Consequences” | An Outsiders' Perspective — September 29, 2008 @ 4:26 pm
September 29th, 2008 at 10:39 pm
TP wrote:
I never said anything like that. My point was that ‘scorn, ridicule and contemptuous condescension’ is not the way to win hearts and minds. Jesus taught that we are “to love God with all our hearts” and “love our neighbors (or our fellow man) as our self” Certainly it’s good and commendable if someone of another faith, or no faith at all, loves his fellow man as Jesus taught. (Some theologians refer to this as common grace.) However, you can’t argue that loving your fellow man is a universal moral truth unless it is grounded something that itself is universal. Theologian Paul Tillich talked about God as the ground of being. I would take that one step further and argue that God is not only the ground of being but the ground of morality. IOW God is not only the creator but the moral law giver.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — September 29, 2008 @ 10:39 pm