Print
The Secular Conscience
by Austin Dacey
Released March 18, 2008
Buy it now at Amazon.com
Read the First Chapter!
THE SECULAR CONSCIENCE: WHY BELIEF BELONGS IN PUBLIC LIFE
Has secularism lost its soul? From Washington to the Vatican to Tehran, religion is a public matter as never before, and secular values--individual autonomy, pluralism, separation of religion and state, and freedom of conscience--are attacked on all sides and defended by few. The godly claim a monopoly on the language of morality, while secular liberals stand accused of standing for nothing.
Secular liberals did not lose their moral compass: they gave it away. For generations, too many have insisted that questions of conscience--religion, ethics, and values--are "private matters" that have no place in public debate. Ironically, this ideology hinders them from subjecting religion to due scrutiny when it encroaches on individual rights, and from unabashedly advocating their own moral vision in politics for fear of "imposing" their beliefs on others.
In his incisive new book, The Secular Conscience (Prometheus Books, March 2008), philosopher Austin Dacey calls for a bold rethinking of the nature of conscience and its role in public life. Inspired by an earlier liberal tradition he traces to Spinoza and John Stuart Mill, he urges liberals to lift their self-imposed gag order and defend a renewed secularism based on the objective moral value of conscience.
Conscience is like the free press in an open society: it is protected from coercion and control, not because it is private, but because it has a vital role in the public sphere. Conscience is free, but not liberated from shared standards of truth and right. Conscience must come before any and all faiths, for it is what tells us whether or not to believe. In this way, it supplies a shared vocabulary for meaningful dialogue in a diverse society, and an ethical lingua franca in which to address the world.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Austin Dacey is a representative to the United Nations for the Center for Inquiry in New York City, where he works on issues of science and secular values. He is the author of articles in numerous publications including the New York Times. He holds a doctorate in applied ethics and social philosophy.
PRAISE FOR THE SECULAR CONSCIENCE
Dacey seeks nothing less than to interrupt a suicide, and he has written a beautiful primer on how our secular tradition can be rescued from self-defeat. The Secular Conscience reveals how simplistic notions of privacy, tolerance, and freedom keep dangerous ideas sheltered from public debate. This is an extraordinarily useful and lucid book.
- Sam Harris, author of the New York Times best sellers, The End of Faith and Letter to a Christian Nation
On almost all the hot--button issues-abortion, embryo-destructive research, same-sex marriage, Darwinism as a comprehensive philosophy, etc.--Dacey is, in my judgment, on the wrong side. But he is right about one very big thing. These contests are not between people who, on the one side, are trying to impose their morality on others, and people who, on the other side, subscribe to a purely procedural and amoral rationality. . . The Secular Conscience was written in order to advance the fortunes of liberal secularism in the public square. On many questions of great public moment, most of us will disagree with Austin Dacey. At the same time, he should be recognized as an ally in his contention that these are moral questions that must be addressed by moral argument.
- Richard John Neuhaus, First Things
Austin Dacey's The Secular Conscience is sorely needed at a time when both the religious right and the religious left claim that there can be no public or private morality without religion. With wit and a philosopher's insight, Dacey explains exactly why secular morality, grounded in an ethical approach that relies on reason rather than supernatural faith, must be restored to the public square.
- Susan Jacoby, author, The Age of American Unreason
Against the cliche that there can be no morality without God, Austin Dacey mounts a rejoinder so intellectually and morally satisfying that all should think twice before repeating that "truism" again. His arguments are so fair-minded, knowledgable, and objective that they demonstrate, in their very form and tone, the values of fair-mindedness, knowledgability and objectivity for which he advocates. A work at once philosphically rich and morally inspiring, The Secular Conscience makes an invaluable contribution to the charged conversation concerning religion and reason.
- Rebecca Goldstein, author of Betraying Spinoza
Finally, a case for secularism that does not seek to rid the public square of religion, but which shows that it can be a place for all to exercise their deepest convictions civilly and on equal terms. Bravo!
- Mark Silk, Director of the Leonard E. Greenberg Center for the Study of Religion in Public Life at Trinity College
Whenever I watch a riot over cartoons or meet another Muslim dissident forced to write under a pseudonym, I wonder, where are the Western secular liberals? Why do they shrink from defending freedom of conscience for all? Thanks to Austin Dacey, I now have an answer. As his piercing analysis shows, liberals have lost their grip on the real meaning of freedom. Only with a restored commitment to conscience as an objective moral ideal can they face down fundamentalists while constructively engaging with reformers of the faith. The Secular Conscience should be read by every friend of the open society.
- Ibn Warraq, author, Defending the West
There is much here for a religious believer to applaud. Dacey's insistence on conscience as a corrigible moral guide, on a public square informed by the vigorous discursive pursuit of first principle and their defense in reason are extremely positive. At a certain point, a believer must part company but for much of the way we can walk and work together.
- Alan Mittleman, Director of the Louis Finkelstein Institute for Religious and Social Studies, Jewish Theological Seminary
With intellectual vigor and moral confidence, Austin Dacey demonstrates the self-defeating fallacies of efforts to privatize individual conscience and belief. Secularists and non-theists should heed his call to join public debates about fundamental ethical values, instead of questioning the impulse to conduct them.
- Wendy Kaminer, lawyer and author, Free for All
The Secular Conscience breathes new life into an old topic. Dacey thinks outside the box. His argument for allowing believers back into the "public square"-and then subjecting them to a forceful critique-is fresh and convincing, as is his surprising critique of the reasoning in Roe v Wade. And his chapters on secular ethics are superb.
- Peter Singer, Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics, Princeton University
In a dazzling display of erudition, this book presents a cogent argument for secular liberalism. Dacey . . . claims that values and ethics--defining what is right and wrong, good and bad--are not the sole domain of theologians. To contribute to our understanding of enlightened secularism, he cites like-minded thinkers such as Thomas Hobbes, John Dewey, Adam Smith, John Rawls, Immanuel Kant, John Stuart Mill, Plato, John Locke and Baruch Spinoza, among others. Dacey's presentation is especially timely in view of the emphasis by some current presidential candidates on their religious identity. Not since 1960 when John F. Kennedy, as a Roman Catholic, argued for church-state separation has the issue of secularism versus religion been so prominent in a national
election. Dacey's analysis helps to put this question into the larger perspective of liberty and conscience. Dacey advocates for democracy lover authoritarianism, not hesitating to challenge theocratic Islam, for example, as a "new totalitarianism." He calls on secular liberals to stand up for "reason and science, the separation of church and state, freedom of belief, personal autonomy, equality, toleration, and self-criticism." This is a thoughtful, well-reasoned argument for progressive secularism.
- Publishers Weekly
Buy it now at Amazon.com
Read the First Chapter!
THE SECULAR CONSCIENCE: WHY BELIEF BELONGS IN PUBLIC LIFE
Has secularism lost its soul? From Washington to the Vatican to Tehran, religion is a public matter as never before, and secular values--individual autonomy, pluralism, separation of religion and state, and freedom of conscience--are attacked on all sides and defended by few. The godly claim a monopoly on the language of morality, while secular liberals stand accused of standing for nothing.
Secular liberals did not lose their moral compass: they gave it away. For generations, too many have insisted that questions of conscience--religion, ethics, and values--are "private matters" that have no place in public debate. Ironically, this ideology hinders them from subjecting religion to due scrutiny when it encroaches on individual rights, and from unabashedly advocating their own moral vision in politics for fear of "imposing" their beliefs on others.
In his incisive new book, The Secular Conscience (Prometheus Books, March 2008), philosopher Austin Dacey calls for a bold rethinking of the nature of conscience and its role in public life. Inspired by an earlier liberal tradition he traces to Spinoza and John Stuart Mill, he urges liberals to lift their self-imposed gag order and defend a renewed secularism based on the objective moral value of conscience.
Conscience is like the free press in an open society: it is protected from coercion and control, not because it is private, but because it has a vital role in the public sphere. Conscience is free, but not liberated from shared standards of truth and right. Conscience must come before any and all faiths, for it is what tells us whether or not to believe. In this way, it supplies a shared vocabulary for meaningful dialogue in a diverse society, and an ethical lingua franca in which to address the world.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Austin Dacey is a representative to the United Nations for the Center for Inquiry in New York City, where he works on issues of science and secular values. He is the author of articles in numerous publications including the New York Times. He holds a doctorate in applied ethics and social philosophy.
PRAISE FOR THE SECULAR CONSCIENCE
Dacey seeks nothing less than to interrupt a suicide, and he has written a beautiful primer on how our secular tradition can be rescued from self-defeat. The Secular Conscience reveals how simplistic notions of privacy, tolerance, and freedom keep dangerous ideas sheltered from public debate. This is an extraordinarily useful and lucid book.
- Sam Harris, author of the New York Times best sellers, The End of Faith and Letter to a Christian Nation
On almost all the hot--button issues-abortion, embryo-destructive research, same-sex marriage, Darwinism as a comprehensive philosophy, etc.--Dacey is, in my judgment, on the wrong side. But he is right about one very big thing. These contests are not between people who, on the one side, are trying to impose their morality on others, and people who, on the other side, subscribe to a purely procedural and amoral rationality. . . The Secular Conscience was written in order to advance the fortunes of liberal secularism in the public square. On many questions of great public moment, most of us will disagree with Austin Dacey. At the same time, he should be recognized as an ally in his contention that these are moral questions that must be addressed by moral argument.
- Richard John Neuhaus, First Things
Austin Dacey's The Secular Conscience is sorely needed at a time when both the religious right and the religious left claim that there can be no public or private morality without religion. With wit and a philosopher's insight, Dacey explains exactly why secular morality, grounded in an ethical approach that relies on reason rather than supernatural faith, must be restored to the public square.
- Susan Jacoby, author, The Age of American Unreason
Against the cliche that there can be no morality without God, Austin Dacey mounts a rejoinder so intellectually and morally satisfying that all should think twice before repeating that "truism" again. His arguments are so fair-minded, knowledgable, and objective that they demonstrate, in their very form and tone, the values of fair-mindedness, knowledgability and objectivity for which he advocates. A work at once philosphically rich and morally inspiring, The Secular Conscience makes an invaluable contribution to the charged conversation concerning religion and reason.
- Rebecca Goldstein, author of Betraying Spinoza
Finally, a case for secularism that does not seek to rid the public square of religion, but which shows that it can be a place for all to exercise their deepest convictions civilly and on equal terms. Bravo!
- Mark Silk, Director of the Leonard E. Greenberg Center for the Study of Religion in Public Life at Trinity College
Whenever I watch a riot over cartoons or meet another Muslim dissident forced to write under a pseudonym, I wonder, where are the Western secular liberals? Why do they shrink from defending freedom of conscience for all? Thanks to Austin Dacey, I now have an answer. As his piercing analysis shows, liberals have lost their grip on the real meaning of freedom. Only with a restored commitment to conscience as an objective moral ideal can they face down fundamentalists while constructively engaging with reformers of the faith. The Secular Conscience should be read by every friend of the open society.
- Ibn Warraq, author, Defending the West
There is much here for a religious believer to applaud. Dacey's insistence on conscience as a corrigible moral guide, on a public square informed by the vigorous discursive pursuit of first principle and their defense in reason are extremely positive. At a certain point, a believer must part company but for much of the way we can walk and work together.
- Alan Mittleman, Director of the Louis Finkelstein Institute for Religious and Social Studies, Jewish Theological Seminary
With intellectual vigor and moral confidence, Austin Dacey demonstrates the self-defeating fallacies of efforts to privatize individual conscience and belief. Secularists and non-theists should heed his call to join public debates about fundamental ethical values, instead of questioning the impulse to conduct them.
- Wendy Kaminer, lawyer and author, Free for All
The Secular Conscience breathes new life into an old topic. Dacey thinks outside the box. His argument for allowing believers back into the "public square"-and then subjecting them to a forceful critique-is fresh and convincing, as is his surprising critique of the reasoning in Roe v Wade. And his chapters on secular ethics are superb.
- Peter Singer, Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics, Princeton University
In a dazzling display of erudition, this book presents a cogent argument for secular liberalism. Dacey . . . claims that values and ethics--defining what is right and wrong, good and bad--are not the sole domain of theologians. To contribute to our understanding of enlightened secularism, he cites like-minded thinkers such as Thomas Hobbes, John Dewey, Adam Smith, John Rawls, Immanuel Kant, John Stuart Mill, Plato, John Locke and Baruch Spinoza, among others. Dacey's presentation is especially timely in view of the emphasis by some current presidential candidates on their religious identity. Not since 1960 when John F. Kennedy, as a Roman Catholic, argued for church-state separation has the issue of secularism versus religion been so prominent in a national
election. Dacey's analysis helps to put this question into the larger perspective of liberty and conscience. Dacey advocates for democracy lover authoritarianism, not hesitating to challenge theocratic Islam, for example, as a "new totalitarianism." He calls on secular liberals to stand up for "reason and science, the separation of church and state, freedom of belief, personal autonomy, equality, toleration, and self-criticism." This is a thoughtful, well-reasoned argument for progressive secularism.
- Publishers Weekly
Add to del.icio.us
Posted: Wednesday, March 19, 2008 | PermalinkComments 1 - 50 of 92 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers2. Comment #146897 by FightingFalcon on March 19, 2008 at 2:25 pm
This is what I would like to see more of. I'm tired of just seeing anti-Theism books because they offer no solution. We're all in agreement that religion is damaging to humanity but what is our solution? Like it or not, the majority of mankind relies on religion to provide its morality for it. If we're going to look toward a post-Theism planet, we need to offer our own alternative. Dawkins made a valiant effort in The God Delusion, but more people need to make the case that 1) morality doesn't stem from religion and 2) that you can be moral without religion. The greatest source of discrimination that Atheists continue to suffer from is our supposed immorality and lack of trust. Like it or not, this is what we're up against and we need to counter it.
Other Comments by FightingFalcon
3. Comment #146903 by Henri Bergson on March 19, 2008 at 2:34 pm
This book is meaningless after Nietzsche.Secular liberalism is slave morality (Christianity in disguise).
Other Comments by Henri Bergson
4. Comment #146931 by D'Arcy on March 19, 2008 at 3:02 pm
Dacey, a philosopher who teaches at Polytechnic University and the State University of New York at Buffalo, claims that values and ethicsâ€"defining what is right and wrong, good and badâ€"are not the sole domain of theologians.
Dacey is being too indulgent. Religion has bugger all too do with morality. Religions of all kinds merely latch onto the existing moral views and then claim them as their own. Religion is itself a product of the society from which it springs.
Other Comments by D'Arcy
5. Comment #146936 by Jiten on March 19, 2008 at 3:06 pm
This book is meaningless after Nietzsche.
Knee Che can be safely ignored.
Other Comments by Jiten
6. Comment #146961 by Pattern Seeker on March 19, 2008 at 3:25 pm
As an American, we need more voices like this to suppress the 'white noise' of fundies. Anything that promotes reason and critical thinking, as compared to blind allegiance, is a positive. Now if we could just get Professor Dawkins to move here like Christopher HItchens did a few years ago...
Professor, are you listening-Or should I say reading this?
Other Comments by Pattern Seeker
7. Comment #146996 by Geoff on March 19, 2008 at 4:25 pm
Read the introduction to the book here:http://www.austindacey.com/writing.html
Other Comments by Geoff
8. Comment #146999 by Lucas on March 19, 2008 at 4:29 pm
Hear hear, FightingFalcon. Everything you said times ten.Henri - I think you're a bit confused. Read this book, then tell us if you still think the same way.
Other Comments by Lucas
9. Comment #147001 by MaxD on March 19, 2008 at 4:36 pm
I am constantly baffled by the theist's rejection of secularism. Secularism protects everyone's ability to practice or not practice the religion of their choice. Other Comments by MaxD
10. Comment #147008 by Diacanu on March 19, 2008 at 4:53 pm
First of all, what FightingFalcon and Jiten said.Second...
MaxD-
I am constantly baffled by the theist's rejection of secularism. Secularism protects everyone's ability to practice or not practice the religion of their choice.
Because christianity (at least the fundie brand) doesn't want to co-exist, it wants to dominate.
Look at the old testament.
No co-existance there, it's all about crushing all the non-believers.
Other Comments by Diacanu
11. Comment #147013 by MaxD on March 19, 2008 at 5:03 pm
You make a good point Sir Diacanu Other Comments by MaxD
12. Comment #147051 by jimbob on March 19, 2008 at 5:58 pm
Religion has bugger all too do with morality. Religions of all kinds merely latch onto the existing moral views and then claim them as their own. Religion is itself a product of the society from which it springs.
Beg to differ, but religion is often an obstacle to humanistic morality. Thought everybody had grasped that around here?
Other Comments by jimbob
13. Comment #147053 by Jack Rawlinson on March 19, 2008 at 6:01 pm
"Secular liberalism is slave morality (Christianity in disguise)."Wow. Somebody needs to broaden his reading list. And his mind.
Other Comments by Jack Rawlinson
14. Comment #147094 by jwdink on March 19, 2008 at 7:30 pm
This book is meaningless after Nietzsche.
Secular liberalism is slave morality (Christianity in disguise).
What? Could you say more?
Other Comments by jwdink
15. Comment #147115 by avekid on March 19, 2008 at 9:14 pm
This book is meaningless after Nietzsche.
Secular liberalism is slave morality (Christianity in disguise).
You're joking, right?
Other Comments by avekid
16. Comment #147120 by Eric Blair on March 19, 2008 at 9:32 pm
You're joking, right?
This book is meaningless after Nietzsche.
Secular liberalism is slave morality (Christianity in disguise).
Michel Onfray (The Atheist Manifesto) agrees, saying we have to expunge Judeao-Christian dogma from our derivative "modern" ideas and institutions.
Marxists have said much the same thing but put it in terms of "bourgeois" values.
I think this might be properly termed "atheist extremism" and has all the failings and dangers of other kinds of extremism, and not much to recommend it.
BTW, many if not most forms of Christianity support the secular state, not least in the US where separation of church and state helped spawn a wide variety of churches and create the most religious people in the West.
EB
Other Comments by Eric Blair
17. Comment #147129 by Bonzai on March 19, 2008 at 9:53 pm
Eric BlairBTW, many if not most forms of Christianity support the secular state, not least in the US where separation of church and state helped spawn a wide variety of churches and create the most religious people in the West.
This is an important point to be made. Indeed the vast majority of Christians do support political secularism even though some would like to influence public policies through lobbying and political campaign,--which is their right in a democracy. Even Jerry Falwell's followers distance themselves from ultra extremists like the Dominionists who call for a full blown theocracy.
One does not have to be an atheist to know that theocracy is a bad idea. In fact under a theocracy people who happen to believe in the wrong faith or the wrong interpretations of even the right faith (Sunni v.s Shias for example) are often more persecuted than those who don't believe in any faith at all. I think at least in the West many theists of all religions do realize that,
Other Comments by Bonzai
18. Comment #147133 by Bonzai on March 19, 2008 at 10:08 pm
Skull in washing machineThis book is meaningless after Nietzsche.
Secular liberalism is slave morality (Christianity in disguise)
Nietzsche was a great writer. I love his passion and his extravagant, bombastic style. He was the embodiment of the Dyonesian impulse. However,you also have to read him with a big grain of salt, knowing his tendency to exaggerate to grab your attention.
To say that humanism is "Christian morality" presumes Christianity invented its moral code while quite a bit of it is actually universal. We don't need any alleged "revelation" for something basic like the Golden Rule, we discovered them through living with others. We knew them long before Jesus,
Religion often only provides a metaphysical framework to codify and express ideas that have already been around.
Other Comments by Bonzai
19. Comment #147139 by theantitheist on March 19, 2008 at 11:10 pm
I'll definatly get this book to read but on a completley unrelated subject i want to encourage everyone to read their bible.
This is funny funny shit. I have no idea how long it must have taken some stoned Rasta but check it out THE RASTAFARIAN BIBLE. WROTE IN RASTA!!! It's the whole friggin bible!!
Check it out you will not regret it.
http://www.lolcatbible.com/index.php?title=Genesis_1
All hail the Ceiling Cat!!
Other Comments by theantitheist
20. Comment #147143 by cyris8400 on March 19, 2008 at 11:45 pm
Hmm, that's a disturbing-sounding comment from Henri Bergson. What part of liberalism entails a slave morality? I could understand if you're talking about multiculturalism and postmodernism, but not if you also mean things like freedom of religion and choice.If Onfray is a proponent of what it sounds like Mr. Bergson is advocating, then I may be sorry I bought his "Atheist Manifesto" (haven't read it yet).
Other Comments by cyris8400
21. Comment #147147 by cyris8400 on March 20, 2008 at 12:21 am
ZOMG quoteworthy:"Many secular liberals have convinced themselves that freedom of belief entails respect for all religions, and that respect means refraining from criticism. But that is not respect; it's just blanket acceptance, even disregard. Understood correctly, respect is not just compatible with criticismâ€"respect entails criticism. To respect someone we must take him seriously, and taking someone seriously sometimes means finding fault with him."
From the introduction (http://www.austindacey.com/writing.html) to Dacey's book.
Take that, fleas!
Reminds me of something similar Ann Druyan wrote in the introduction to "The Varieties of Scientific Experience", that Carl Sagan took God so seriously that that he could not bring himself to believe in him through faith.
Other Comments by cyris8400
22. Comment #147149 by PlagioClase on March 20, 2008 at 12:24 am
Great article here:UK Study Finds People Who Believe in God are Happier than Agnostics or Atheists.
Moreover, people become even happier the more they pray and go to church.
Other Comments by PlagioClase
23. Comment #147153 by epeeist on March 20, 2008 at 12:54 am
Comment #147149 by PlagioClaseYou might care to look at http://moses.creighton.edu/jrs/2005/2005-11.html
Great article here:
UK Study Finds People Who Believe in God are Happier than Agnostics or Atheists.
Moreover, people become even happier the more they pray and go to church.
Oh - and even if religion makes people feel happy it doesn't make it true. "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."
Other Comments by epeeist
24. Comment #147155 by clodhopper on March 20, 2008 at 1:00 am
Secular democracy protects the right of people to believe in whatever nonsense they wish within the framework of civil & criminal law. While I agree most Christians see the importance of this state of affairs I would have to make exception when it comes to the Catholic church.
In my view, the tactics they use to influence public policy to conform to their agenda take them well beyond mere lobbying. The pressure, nay threats, they employ directed at Catholic politicians and voters is beyond the pale and should be curtailed by law.
Other Comments by clodhopper
25. Comment #147159 by irate_atheist on March 20, 2008 at 1:06 am
23. Comment #147153 by epeeist -"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."Who's not quoting their sources now, eh?
Plus, you beat me to it. On this thread, anyway. Dammit.
Other Comments by irate_atheist
26. Comment #147162 by PJG on March 20, 2008 at 1:20 am
It can be argued that, far from it being impossible to be moral without God, if you NEED God (or any external motivation) to be moral then, by definition, you have not progressed to the highest level of moral maturity.
It is easy to see how useful God can be when controlling the behaviour of people in the Expedient (no internalised morality - feel bad only if they are caught!) and Conforming stages (no internalised morality - go with the group) and it may be true that many people need that external control... but to pretend that one can't be moral without it actually reveals a level of immaturity which society would do well to try to leave behind.
Other Comments by PJG
27. Comment #147168 by Antipotheosis on March 20, 2008 at 1:29 am
I'll definately be looking out for this book... Other Comments by Antipotheosis
28. Comment #147170 by AKirkland on March 20, 2008 at 1:29 am
Quote: I think this might be properly termed "atheist extremism" and has all the failings and dangers of other kinds of extremism, and not much to recommend it. (end quote)
The "atheist extremists" arguement gets on my tits like no other. There is a big difference between an extremist who happens to be atheist, and an extremist who conducts his most extreme actions based purely on his atheism. Stalin, to use a tired example, was an atheist "extremist", not an "atheist extremist". And in any case, the failings and dangers of Islamic extremism (and to a lesser degree that of other religions) trump any and all, including the so-called "atheist extremists". Do you know anyone who would pilot a jet into a packed building in the name of atheism?
I know this probably wasn't your original point, but any mention of the arguement depicting prominent atheists as "extremists" who frame our debate by providing a counter balance to the religious extremists really pisses me off.
Other Comments by AKirkland
29. Comment #147173 by Enlightenme.. on March 20, 2008 at 1:41 am
"2) that you can be moral without religion"
The problem here is the word 'can'
...be moral or immoral.
"and even if religion makes people feel happy it doesn't make it true"
That's a given, however a lot of people feel the prescription is still required to counter the percieved natural order to look after #1, and are willing to put their faith in it.
We're not fighting for the truth, in my opinion, but simply to erode the belief in belief.
Other Comments by Enlightenme..
30. Comment #147174 by Yggdrasill on March 20, 2008 at 1:43 am
"claims that values and ethicsâ€"defining what is right and wrong, good and badâ€"are not the sole domain of theologians"i think that does belong in the real of theology, but i dont understand atheist's morality. how can you have evil in the first place?
amorality is the only rational view i can see. lol even one of the articles on this site had a study on morality, its so emotionally involved how can it even stand near the word 'reason'
Other Comments by Yggdrasill
31. Comment #147182 by Enlightenme.. on March 20, 2008 at 2:23 am
^ We have collectively decided that slavery is evil, and in a way it therefore follows that the apologetics for scriptures that condone it fall under their term - evil.
Sigh - just seen president Talabani (Iraq) state that "The root of all evil is in politics - there is no religious divide here"
Other Comments by Enlightenme..
32. Comment #147292 by Darwin's badger on March 20, 2008 at 5:44 am
This is funny funny shit. I have no idea how long it must have taken some stoned Rasta but check it out THE RASTAFARIAN BIBLE. WROTE IN RASTA!!! It's the whole friggin bible!!
It's not written in Rasta; it's kitty pidgin, the language of the Lolcat. Look 'em up on www.icanhascheezburger.com
Other Comments by Darwin's badger
33. Comment #147299 by Peacebeuponme on March 20, 2008 at 6:08 am
PlagioClaseGreat article here:Great artice here : www.christianitywasmadeupbyhungryarabswithheatstroke.com.
UK Study Finds People Who Believe in God are Happier than Agnostics or Atheists.
Moreover, people become even happier the more they pray and go to church.
Other Comments by Peacebeuponme
34. Comment #147302 by Peacebeuponme on March 20, 2008 at 6:10 am
Henri BergsonSecular liberalism is slave morality (Christianity in disguise).Glad you are back, and as compromising as ever!
Other Comments by Peacebeuponme
35. Comment #147304 by Peacebeuponme on March 20, 2008 at 6:12 am
Yggdrasillamorality is the only rational view i can seeYou don't see the need for collective agreement enabling us to get along?
Other Comments by Peacebeuponme
36. Comment #147307 by emmet on March 20, 2008 at 6:14 am
Judge theology it by its fruits: three thousand of years of Judaeo-Christian theology has yielded nothing; a lot of rubbish about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, or bogus calculations of the age of the earth, but not a single useful artifact. Not a steam engine, a lightbulb, or a medicine. In one tenth of that time, rational enquiry and science have given us everything in the modern world from NSAIDs to MRI to sat-nav.Theology is bunk. A theologian deserves no more respect than an astrologer.
Other Comments by emmet
37. Comment #147320 by Justanotheratheist on March 20, 2008 at 6:41 am
Theology is bunk. A theologian deserves no more respect than an astrologer
Worse, in my opinion. Astrologers don't brainwash children, don't knock on your door trying to convert you with free dogpoop magazines, don't blame homosexuals when there's a flood, and don't spread rumours that condoms intended for poor African nations are deliberately sabotaged.
The list goes on and on. I would put theologians much, much further down the food chain than astrologers. Both advocate forms of mumbo-jumbo, but one is essentially harmless. The other is unspeakable.
Other Comments by Justanotheratheist
38. Comment #147338 by PlagioClase on March 20, 2008 at 7:27 am
Justanotheratheist, Comment #147320Worse, in my opinion.
Who cares? And why do you worry? According to Richard we live in a universe with nothing but 'blind, pitiless indifference'.
Anyway, Wiki says that theology is a term compounded from two Greek words theos (god) and logos (rational utterance). It has been defined as reasoned discourse about God or the gods, or more generally about religion or spirituality.
So, according to that definition, atheists are theologians too and this is a theological site. I can't imagine that atheists would claim their utterances about God are not 'rational'.
Other Comments by PlagioClase
39. Comment #147350 by irate_atheist on March 20, 2008 at 7:49 am
38. Comment #147338 by PlagioClase -
What's the Greek for Ultra Large Hadron Collider?
Or perhaps their knowledge wasn't as advanced as all that.
Other Comments by irate_atheist
40. Comment #147353 by epeeist on March 20, 2008 at 7:54 am
Comment #147338 by PlagioClaseHowever, that doesn't mean we have to be.
Who cares? And why do you worry? According to Richard we live in a universe with nothing but 'blind, pitiless indifference'.
But we don't discuss the properties of gods in the same way we don't discuss the eating habits of invisible garage dragons. We might discuss mechanisms for detecting invisible, non-substantial garage dragons, but sadly none of these has ever been successful. A bit similar to the detection of gods really.
So, according to that definition, atheists are theologians too and this is a theological site. I can't imagine that atheists would claim their utterances about God are not 'rational'.
Before you start discussing the properties of your particular god you have to establish:
- That the universe was created
- That it was created by a omni-maximal entity
- That this entity didn't just create the universe and then decide to go and do other things, it actually stayed around interfering with what it had created
- That the entity was actually the deity of a particular iron age tribe that lived on a small section of a planet which rotates round one particular sun in 1011 suns in a particular galaxy in something like 150 billion others
- That the doings of this deity were documented in the holy book of that tribe some 2000 years ago and that the contents of that book are still valid
Other Comments by epeeist
41. Comment #147357 by al-rawandi on March 20, 2008 at 8:05 am
I agree with plagio.
Some here have made "theology" a pejorative word, and have used it as a focus of hate and invective.
There are plenty of theologians, some I have met, who are atheists. Understanding theories of God, spirituality, religious doctrine, etc... all these can be useful even in an atheist world.
I get the feeling that many of the hostile atheists here feel that everything about religion should just be gone from earth. I tend to agree, but I would say that theology is the last thing to go because it would help us understand religion, which is important.
And from the manifest ignorance regarding Islam I have seen here, combined with an absolute hatred of the faith, at the same time advocating military solutions, a greater degree of understanding would be a good thing.
Other Comments by al-rawandi
42. Comment #147360 by al-rawandi on March 20, 2008 at 8:08 am
epeeist,
I can discuss the properties of an imaginary god. The belief in whom spurs people to action. Do you refrain from talking about the properties of Romeo and Juliet? Do you refrain from talking about the characters of a Tom Clancy novel? No. These are forms of literary criticism.
One can criticize ideas. Just look at the discussion on free will. Can you demonstrate the absolute existence of free will? If not, then is it an illegitimate topic to discuss something that may motivate people to both good and evil (free will)?
Can you say for certain there is Darwinistic Determinism, and therefore no free will?
Your 5 step program is only relevant when dealing with instantiation of an interventionist god. It is useless and rather absurd when discussing the potential effects of the idea and/or belief in a deity.
Other Comments by al-rawandi
43. Comment #147368 by robotaholic on March 20, 2008 at 8:26 am
There are very many english words who's current definitions are not necessarily related to their etymology. Also there are many english words that have come to have multiple definitions; some very unrelated to each other.
I take exception with being called a theologian and I don't believe in theology- even though there may be a definition by which I possibly could be described.
I also could be described as a defecation machine but I prefer to be called a human. lol
Other Comments by robotaholic
44. Comment #147371 by epeeist on March 20, 2008 at 8:28 am
Comment #147360 by al-rawandiI can discuss the properties of an imaginary god. The belief in whom spurs people to action. Do you refrain from talking about the properties of Romeo and Juliet? Do you refrain from talking about the characters of a Tom Clancy novel? No. These are forms of literary criticism.Yes, one can certainly discuss "Romeo and Juliet", it is fiction and one can criticise it as a literary work.
In the same way one can apply the higher criticism to religious texts to establish origins and authors, however I would contend this is more history than theology. One can also look at beliefs, but I would contend this is social anthropology.
Your 5 step program is only relevant when dealing with instantiation of an interventionist god. It is useless and rather absurd when discussing the potential effects of the idea and/or belief in a deity.
The points are valid if the OP is claiming that his particular beliefs should form the basis of the mores of society. Unless he is able to demonstrate the truth of each of these 5 points he is unable to make a sound argument.
Other Comments by epeeist
45. Comment #147380 by al-rawandi on March 20, 2008 at 8:52 am
epeeist,
The fact that this guy can't make a sound argument based on those logical ground rules is pretty obvious. In fact it was obvious even if he never said anything at all.
You are simply determined to get rid of the field known as "Theology". Even though this can be a secular, atheistic pursuit. This has more to do with emotion than it does with the field.
So let's say the I want to study the Baha'i concept of God and Progressive Revelation. What field should I study? Why can't I go somewhere and study this notion of god? Somewhere where others gather to study the notion of god and its influence on society.
Call that whatever you want, but the pursuit is absolutely legitimate. Emotional opposition is irrelevant.
Other Comments by al-rawandi
46. Comment #147394 by epeeist on March 20, 2008 at 9:12 am
Comment #147380 by al-rawandi
You are simply determined to get rid of the field known as "Theology". Even though this can be a secular, atheistic pursuit. This has more to do with emotion than it does with the field.
More complex than that.
I have two major difficulties with theology. The first is the discussion of topics within its domain as though its grounding is objectively true. The second difficulty is the concomitant assumption that its findings can be used in determining how societies should be organised, what should and should not be taught, what is and what is not moral etc.
So where would you put the study the differences between ancient Egyptian religion and Kermetic wicca? Mythology, sociology, anthropology?
So let's say the I want to study the Baha'i concept of God and Progressive Revelation. What field should I study? Why can't I go somewhere and study this notion of god? Somewhere where others gather to study the notion of god and its influence on society.
I am quite happy to have departments of theology, just lets get rid of the idea that they are discussing ineffable truths and get them more tightly bound to history and anthropology.
Other Comments by epeeist
47. Comment #147395 by Mitchell Gilks on March 20, 2008 at 9:17 am
I will be sure to read this book. I was hoping to see a book just like it.
(Love the avatar Antipotheosis, Horo is such a great character. Spice and Wolf is just an amazingly great series. The final episode should be subbed, and available just about now. I will be sad to see it end.)
Other Comments by Mitchell Gilks
48. Comment #147396 by al-rawandi on March 20, 2008 at 9:22 am
epeeist,
All I can say is.... no shit.
That is what I am advocating. I never said anything about assuming that the Theological perspective is true. I simply advocate understanding the notion of god and its various forms and how that effects out society.
Other Comments by al-rawandi
49. Comment #147400 by whig on March 20, 2008 at 9:38 am
Eric Blair:Michel Onfray (The Atheist Manifesto) agrees, saying we have to expunge Judeao-Christian dogma from our derivative "modern" ideas and institutions.
Onfray is the one atheist the great anti-Enlightenmentist John Gray has any time for, so that automatically makes me suspicious of him.
Other Comments by whig
50. Comment #147403 by jeepyjay on March 20, 2008 at 9:46 am
So let's say the I want to study the Baha'i concept of God and Progressive Revelation. What field should I study? Why can't I go somewhere and study this notion of god? Somewhere where others gather to study the notion of god and its influence on society.
The study of what people believe or have believed and why they have believed it is anthropology or history or psychology. Theology, the study of gods, is a nonsubject, since gods do not exist.
Other Comments by jeepyjay
Over 1.5 million copies sold
Books by Richard Dawkins
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
1. Comment #146890 by Apathy personified on March 19, 2008 at 2:18 pm
Fully agree with the whole idea.
Other Comments by Apathy personified