Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)
Tuesday, April 14, 2009 | Reason : Commentary | print version Print | Comments |

Document Religion's parasitic morality

by Peter Ellerton

Thanks to Pactiss for the link.

Religion's parasitic morality
by Peter Ellerton — posted on Apr 12, 2009 10:44 AM — last modified Apr 12, 2009 10:45 AM

Reposted from
http://pactiss.org:8080/ct/critica/religions-parasitic-morality

Are atheists parasitic on god's morality, or is it the other way around...?

I think the most common argument for the existence of god, outside of the apparent 'design' of the universe, must be that without god there can be no morality. Now, I don't intend to walk the path of my betters by explaining why it is perfectly reasonable to think morality has naturalistic origins; rather I would like to address a subclass of the argument that goes along the following lines.

God is the source of all morality, therefore without god we cannot be moral (i.e. god is a necessary condition for morality). Atheists, secular humanists and the like are parasitic upon god's moral foundation by living their moral nature without accepting its origin in god.

Interestingly, this is one of the few variations of the 'god = morality' arguments that doesn't doom atheists as fiends with no moral direction. Most of them point of course to the great 'atheist' evils of the 20th century such as Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and their ilk; drawing the conclusion that, lacking religious roots and unshackled from the constraints of god's benign guidance, these monsters demonstrate the consequences of the ethical vacuum that is atheism (I'll leave the issue of the true nature of these regimes for another time). At least in the above version, the non-religious are allowed their moral nature.

So then, what's my beef with this otherwise harmless piece of appeasement? Why not just take it as further evidence of the watering down of doctrinal biases and embrace it for the ground-giving that it seemingly is? Well, first and foremost, because it provides us with an exceptionally elegant way of demonstrating that the reverse is in fact true, and it is religion that is parasitic on our evolved morality.

This point of view would hardly be surprising to those already swayed by the efforts of Dawkins, Dennett and their contemporaries to provide an evolutionary description of the human tendency to behave, by and large, in an ethical way; I mean, what other way is there to explain religion's claim? True enough, but I'd like to show in a straightforward manner why the claim falls apart as a direct consequence of reading the bible. And yes, it's good old Leviticus...

I guess most of us have read, at one time or another, the intriguing passage

"You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination." (Leviticus 18:22)

or perhaps

"If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them." (Leviticus 20:13)

Well, I guess that's pretty clear. Stone gays to death. Of course, what's really interesting about biblical morality is that it has zero ethical basis. Most of us will try in some way to outline an ethical framework based on some axiomatic propositions such as 'the greatest good for the greatest number' or 'our ultimate goal is a society with properties X, Y and Z' and we reason from there – this is what we mean by an ethical theory. Biblical ethicist are spared this inconvenience. Good acts are those that god says we should perform. Not killing, not having false idols, slaughtering children – all sanctioned, good acts for a particular time and place. In fact, if you refuse to kill children when god says to, I get the impression this would make you evil, but I'll let the theologians clear up that point for me.

So, in that context let's look at more gems from Leviticus.

"For everyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death. He has cursed his father or his mother. His blood shall be upon him." (Leviticus 20:9)

"If a man lies with a woman during her sickness and uncovers her nakedness, he has discovered her flow, and she has uncovered the flow of her blood. Both of them shall be cut off from her people." (Leviticus 20:18)

"Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property." (Leviticus 25:44-45)

"...and the swine, though it divides the hoof, having cloven hooves, yet does not chew the cud, is unclean to you." (Leviticus 11:7)

"But all in the seas or in the rivers that do not have fins and scales, all that move in the water or any living thing which is in the water, they are an abomination to you." (Leviticus 11:10)


Hard to choose, but I really like the last one, if only for the absurdist feel to it. I guess when god saw all that he had made it must have been something like 'and he beheld what he had brought forth, and he saw that it was good (except for those damn prawns - how the hell did they get in there? Oh well, I'll just make sure no-one goes near them and shell, I mean she'll, be right).'

Given this plethora of punishable pastimes, and taking on board the biblical definition of a good act as one that god says we should do, then it's easy to imagine a lifetime spent walking on eggshells (certainly not crab shells – sorry, I'll stop now) hoping that in some utterly trivial way you don't transgress one of these decidedly written rules and doom yourself to damnation. Particularly when your own sense of morality provides such a poor guide to living (would we recognise eating shellfish as morally wrong if we had never heard of the commandment?). Certainly vast numbers of people have lived like this in the past, and just as many have been as keen to punish those who didn't pass moral muster.

Nowadays most believers, leaving out fundamentalists of all flavours, just don't live this way. But why not? The passages are clear enough. It's not like we can say that Jesus came along and said 'Oh, no! He never meant that.' In fact Jesus clearly said not one jot of the law was to be changed.

'Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.' (Mathew 5:17-18)

So, where does that leave us? We have a non-ethical morality that depends for its grounding on the word of god only and which clearly contradicts our moral instincts. It won't do to say that the differences between what we naturally feel to be right and biblical law are a result of our being unguided or misguided, as if that were true then Christians, for example, would be following the above passages to the letter, stoning children and adulterers every Sunday in the park (or I guess maybe Monday, Sunday being the sabbath and all). No, the only conclusion, and the point of this essay, is that we use our extant morality to determine which bits of religious texts are those we should follow and which bits are those we should ignore. Religion uses the morality we already have to try and buttress its claims to deep truths. The mismatch between natural and biblical morality is a consequence of the attempt to mold our existing feelings of what is right and wrong into a power structure that wants to hijack our own nature and claim it for itself - it is parasitic on our naturally evolved sense of morality.

Comments 1 - 49 of 49 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #364161 by root2squared on April 14, 2009 at 10:11 am

 avatarPicking morals from religion is like picking out food from the trash. Sure, you'll find something edible, and maybe even tasty, but it'll be tainted with the horrid smell of the rest of the junk. Why not just get your food fresh from nature where it came from in the first place.

Other Comments by root2squared

2. Comment #364163 by Diacanu on April 14, 2009 at 10:13 am

 avatarRoot.

That was beautiful.

You should blog that for posterity, that mustn't be lost.

Other Comments by Diacanu

3. Comment #364164 by Stafford Gordon on April 14, 2009 at 10:14 am

The argument is wrapped up very nicely.

Other Comments by Stafford Gordon

4. Comment #364168 by root2squared on April 14, 2009 at 10:19 am

 avatarDiacanu - thanks :)

Other Comments by root2squared

5. Comment #364184 by Rowdy1 on April 14, 2009 at 10:35 am

 avatarIf we were to follow Christianity to the letter, we would see just how similar it is to Islam. I live in East Texas and I am surrounded by the ideaology that Islam is some crazy Middle Eastern religion; completely seperate and different in every way from Christianity (the one with the white Anglo prophet). We casually omit the biblical passages that don't fit our society...except here they love that gay one. Ironically, we have laws to protect homosexuals from being stoned in the streets, to prevent what our religion tells us to do.

Other Comments by Rowdy1

6. Comment #364197 by Lucas on April 14, 2009 at 10:53 am

 avatarSomewhat poor exegesis, but this last part was right on:

...we use our extant morality to determine which bits of religious texts are those we should follow and which bits are those we should ignore. Religion uses the morality we already have to try and buttress its claims to deep truths. The mismatch between natural and biblical morality is a consequence of the attempt to mold our existing feelings of what is right and wrong into a power structure that wants to hijack our own nature and claim it for itself - it is parasitic on our naturally evolved sense of morality.


Other Comments by Lucas

7. Comment #364217 by ARodgers on April 14, 2009 at 11:16 am

 avatarIs it down to the shifting moral zeitgeist to explain why such barbaric things were written by humans in the first place then?

Other Comments by ARodgers

8. Comment #364245 by gr8hands on April 14, 2009 at 12:28 pm

Lucas, all religious exegesis is "somewhat poor" and mostly sophistry.

Other Comments by gr8hands

9. Comment #364249 by ANTIcarrot on April 14, 2009 at 12:32 pm

 avatar"Is it down to the shifting moral zeitgeist to explain why such barbaric things were written by humans in the first place then?"

Absence of soap? Seriously, this was all written at least 3,000 years ago. I think some people have trouble understanding what that means.

99% of the time when we hear about food poisoning, it turns out to be meat poisoning. Is is really that surprising that pre-science cultures had strict rules on what should and should not eat?

If you take away all modern technology and medical theory, how do you guarantee any particular raw oyster is not going to make you sick? Or dead? You can't. It would be like playing russian roulette.
http://www.medic8.com/travel/marine-food-poisoning.htm

Oddly enough, L11:10 would also cover 'don't eat dolphins'. Though this is probably either dumb luck or an early maritime superstition Moses hijacked.

Other Comments by ANTIcarrot

10. Comment #364286 by jamiso on April 14, 2009 at 1:26 pm

 avatarI was kind of wondering.....
has anyone ever done a psychological profile of Abrahamic Middle East Desert God?

I think he may be a Obsessive Compulsive Lonely Sociopathic Closeted Homosexual.

Other Comments by jamiso

11. Comment #364296 by JonLynnHarvey on April 14, 2009 at 1:44 pm

Generally good points, but marred by a couple of significant inaccuracies.
1) Lots of religions have always held that at least some morality is accessible outside of its cultural orbit, notably most Asian religions like Buddhism and even (in a slightly weaselly way) Roman Catholicism with its odd distinction between "natural" virtues (accessible outside of Christianity) and "supernatural" virtues (which allegedly only Christians understand) and certainly Judaism which has never claimed a monopoly on morals in any way.

2a) Judaism has no concept of eternal damnation at all. in classical Judaism, the just and unjust alike go to a slow and sleepy netherworld called Sheol and at the end of time the unjust are just gone period.
2b) In English, the word "abomination" signifies that which is exceptionally repulsive, hateful, or wicked. In Judaism, it has to do with ritual uncleanliness, a kind of taboo. Both the Hebrew word shiqquwts and the Hebrew word tōʻ£"ḇā are always translated into English as "abomination" in spite of quite different connotations. The latter does indeed mean really morally evil things like murder or illicit sex, while the former is usually applied to unclean foods, bad sacrifices, seances, etc. To translate both as "abomination" causes a lot of confusion.
NO form of Judaism has EVER threatened anyone with eternal damnation (doesn't happen in Judaism) for eating shellfish ("shiqquwts"-ritual uncleanliness not the same thing as moral evil "tōʻ£"ḇā")!!!

If there's a point to all this, I don't really like the idea of Dawkins getting all snitty with Madeleine Bunting for misquoting the title of Darwin's book (Yes, it's "Origin of Species" NOT "Origin of THE species") and berating her "amateurism" when basic mistakes like this are made in atheist rhetoric. (Richard Dawkins himself in The God Delusion confuses "The Gospel of Thomas" and the "Infancy Gospel of Thomas", a mistake just as egregious and/or trivial as Madeleine Bunting's confusion about the title of Darwin's book!)

The notion of "morality that depends for its grounding on the word of god only" is largely something found in the more traditionalistic forms of Western Protestantism. I don't understand Islam well enough to comment, but I would seriously say this is NOT true of the rest of the Abrahamic religions, Judaism, Eastern Orthodox Christianity, or Roman Catholicism (EDIT: or liberal Protestantism.)

I certainly do not at all buy into Catholicism's dual concept of "supernatural" vs. "natural" virtues, nor stoning children for disrespecting parents, etc.

My previous post here was on the historical errors in the ridiculous views of the bishop who linked Naziism with atheism, a historical canard if ever there was one. But rationalists then should be a little more nuanced in their historical judgments.

Other Comments by JonLynnHarvey

12. Comment #364317 by JRD7 on April 14, 2009 at 2:32 pm

The bible also tells the story of the good Samaritan. Another perfect example of godless morality.

Other Comments by JRD7

13. Comment #364338 by dazzjazz on April 14, 2009 at 3:19 pm

 avatarWow - I love this, so well said.

Picking morals from religion is like picking out food from the trash. Sure, you'll find something edible, and maybe even tasty, but it'll be tainted with the horrid smell of the rest of the junk. Why not just get your food fresh from nature where it came from in the first place.


Other Comments by dazzjazz

14. Comment #364350 by Pythagoras on April 14, 2009 at 4:12 pm

2: (comment #1) was one of the best comments I've ever read on a forum. Brilliant!

Other Comments by Pythagoras

15. Comment #364352 by robaylesbury on April 14, 2009 at 4:16 pm

 avatarNice, compact article. Sam Harris has said it already, though. It interests me how "sophisticated" theologians try and morph these texts into something more palatable. Almost as if the Creator of the Universe was unable to do a proper job first time around.

Other Comments by robaylesbury

16. Comment #364396 by Alternative Carpark on April 14, 2009 at 6:48 pm

 avatarRoot2squared - or can I call you "2" for short - a beautiful analogy.

Other Comments by Alternative Carpark

17. Comment #364397 by m-man on April 14, 2009 at 6:50 pm

Comment #364161 by root2squared

That is perfect!!
I'm definitely quoting that in the future

Other Comments by m-man

18. Comment #364398 by Bonzai on April 14, 2009 at 6:52 pm

 avatar13. Comment #364296 by JonLynnHarvey

Good post!

Other Comments by Bonzai

19. Comment #364414 by aquilacane on April 14, 2009 at 7:35 pm

 avatarRoot,
With permission, I'm going to use that. Great stuff!

Other Comments by aquilacane

20. Comment #364421 by aquilacane on April 14, 2009 at 8:10 pm

 avatarThanks to root2squared for the perfect image

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Other Comments by aquilacane

21. Comment #364423 by zero/infinity on April 14, 2009 at 8:20 pm

God is an Atheist - Therefore, we who are made in his image, should be too!

P.S. He Would Be Proud.

Other Comments by zero/infinity

22. Comment #364428 by root2squared on April 14, 2009 at 9:40 pm

 avatarThanks everyone :)

Alt. Carpark - Sure!

Aquilacane - Wonderful!

Other Comments by root2squared

23. Comment #364445 by critica on April 14, 2009 at 10:40 pm

 avatarGuys,

I wrote the original piece as a bit of a quick blog for a skeptics site. Fantastic comments and more originality than the piece itself to be sure. Thanks for the inspiration to root2squared and for the cartoon from aquilacane - as a teacher I'll be using it for discussion...

Other Comments by critica

24. Comment #364452 by Styrer- on April 14, 2009 at 11:24 pm

Comment #364445 by critica on April 14, 2009 at 10:40 pm

Hi critica

What do you teach?

Cheers,
Styrer

Other Comments by Styrer-

25. Comment #364457 by jeroen on April 14, 2009 at 11:43 pm

Now if the US would invade Vatican City to spread 'Freedom' - that's something that I'd support.

Other Comments by jeroen

26. Comment #364459 by critica on April 14, 2009 at 11:49 pm

 avatarStyrer,

I teach Philosophy and Critical Thinking to 16/17 year olds in Queensland Schools. Plenty of scope for this kind of thing there...

Other Comments by critica

27. Comment #364461 by carbonman on April 15, 2009 at 12:00 am

 avatarBertrand Russell did away with all the 'God causes the difference between right and wrong' nonsense.

He said something like this. If one believes that there is a difference between right and wrong, then is that difference due to God's fiat or not? If it is, then for God there is no difference between right and wrong and it does not mean anything to say that God is good. If you are going to say God is good, then right and wrong must have some meaning which is logically anterior to God.

He was a clever bugger. His argument is almost as neat as the one that exposes life after death as simple wish thinking, by pointing out that we don't desire to be fat and so we overlook the metaphysical 'proofs' that the soul pervades all space as well as all time.

Other Comments by carbonman

28. Comment #364463 by Styrer- on April 15, 2009 at 12:09 am

Comment #364459 by critica on April 14, 2009 at 11:49 pm

Thanks.

While you think it right to teach as a philosophy teacher that religion falls at the moral hurdle, as you demonstrate nicely in your piece here, may I ask you if you think that it is equally proper for science teachers to demonstrate in class that there is no scientific evidence at all for gods of any kind?

Best,
Styrer

Other Comments by Styrer-

29. Comment #364468 by keddaw on April 15, 2009 at 1:01 am

 avatarMorality comes from evolution, family, society and intellect.

As primates we cherish the young even if they are not our own. If we evolved from lions instead would we consider infanticide moral when we take over a pride? And would polygamy would be the norm?

The notions of right and wrong, including those that come from the intellect are all shaped by our history - personal, society's and species. It would be nice if there were an objective morality, but I think we are stuck with a subjective one.

Other Comments by keddaw

30. Comment #364469 by tieInterceptor on April 15, 2009 at 1:01 am

 avatar
Picking morals from religion is like picking out food from the trash. Sure, you'll find something edible, and maybe even tasty, but it'll be tainted with the horrid smell of the rest of the junk. Why not just get your food fresh from nature where it came from in the first place.


great quote, made it to my youtube profile.

Other Comments by tieInterceptor

31. Comment #364470 by jrhind on April 15, 2009 at 1:08 am

Plato had this sorted long ago. It's called the Euthyphro Dilemma – "Is what is moral commanded by God because it is moral, or is it moral because it is commanded by God?"
If the former than you don't require god for morality; if the latter then god's morality is arbitrary.

Other Comments by jrhind

32. Comment #364474 by critica on April 15, 2009 at 1:37 am

 avatarStyrer,

is it "..equally proper for science teachers to demonstrate in class that there is no scientific evidence at all for gods of any kind?"

No problem at all. I'm not in the business of outlining truths, but rather holding views up to logical analysis. Anyone can demonstrate this, but the question of what that means for truth, and the definition thereof, has to be in the hands of the students once they have the cognitive skills to deal with it. For example, all 'proofs' of the existence of god are pretty much agreed upon by all thinking parties as fallacious. What this means I hand over to the kids. Real minefield otherwise.

Other Comments by critica

33. Comment #364482 by carbonman on April 15, 2009 at 2:38 am

 avatarjrhind
Plato had this sorted long ago. It's called the Euthyphro Dilemma – "Is what is moral commanded by God because it is moral, or is it moral because it is commanded by God?"
If the former than you don't require god for morality; if the latter then god's morality is arbitrary.

Yes, Russell was saying the same as Plato.

Other Comments by carbonman

34. Comment #364484 by substantia on April 15, 2009 at 2:42 am

 avatarBravo!

The inconsistencies in Christian thinking is so rampant, but skillful apologists weave a convoluted pseudo-logical argument to maintain the delusion. If they could see the hollow morality of the Bible, then maybe christians can finally loosen their grip on the book.

The voice of reason will continue to get louder and religious people will have to finally address their irrational ways. We should all try and curb misinformation whenever we can. It is like a infective vector, we need to inoculate people against the spread of ignorance and indoctrination.

Other Comments by substantia

35. Comment #364486 by WilliamP on April 15, 2009 at 2:56 am

Saying that god is a necessary condition for morality sounds attractive, perhaps. But when used to justify the existence of a single god, it sounds absurd to say that the existence of morals is a sufficient condition for his existence. When there is more than one moral system in existence, for theists, it would at best indicate that there were several gods, or one incompetent god who was incapable of making uniform morals.

Other Comments by WilliamP

36. Comment #364495 by Vaal on April 15, 2009 at 4:46 am

 avatarGreat quote by Dr Jeff Schweitzer on another thread that encapsulates religion's highjacking of morality in one sentence..
Religion has cashed in our core morality for coupons to heaven

Exactly. Have to remember that quote for the next "morality from religion" sermon from the feather-brained.

Other Comments by Vaal

37. Comment #364506 by friendlypig on April 15, 2009 at 5:35 am

 avatarOn Easter Monday I watched a 2 hour programme on the History Channel, The Bible Unearthed, which I found fascinating. Two Israeli archaeologists, Israel Finkelstein, director of Tel Aviv’s excavations at Megiddo (Armageddon) and Neil Silberman, author of several books on the political and cultural dimensions of archaeology.

The programme concerned their comparison of what the archaeological record tells us, using contemporary and independent records from the civilisations who were active in the region, to the record laid out in the Old Testament.

Their conclusions? Until the time of Hezekiah in approx 715-687 BC it is pure fabrication and myth; although they do go to great lengths so as not to upset the ‘cultural and religious’ traditions of Judaism. They also put forward the idea that is was during the reign of Esther in approximately 365BC that what is now called the Torah was written.

I think that this explains it far better than I:

Amazon.com Review
The Bible Unearthed is a balanced, thoughtful, bold reconsideration of the historical period that produced the Hebrew Bible. The headline news in this book is easy to pick out: there is no evidence for the existence of Abraham, or any of the Patriarchs; ditto for Moses and the Exodus; and the same goes for the whole period of Judges and the united monarchy of David and Solomon. In fact, the authors argue that it is impossible to say much of anything about ancient Israel until the seventh century B.C., around the time of the reign of King Josiah. In that period, "the narrative of the Bible was uniquely suited to further the religious reform and territorial ambitions of Judah." Yet the authors deny that their arguments should be construed as compromising the Bible's power. Only in the 18th century--"when the Hebrew Bible began to be dissected and studied in isolation from its powerful function in community life"--did readers begin to view the Bible as a source of empirically verifiable history. For most of its life, the Bible has been what Finkelstein and Silberman reveal it once more to be: an eloquent expression of "the deeply rooted sense of shared origins, experiences, and destiny that every human community needs in order to survive," written in such a way as to encompass "the men, women, and children, the rich, the poor, and the destitute of an entire community." --Michael Joseph Gross --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.

------------------------

After the conquering of Israel, what we now know as Syria, by the Assyrians, that the migration of the Israelites to Judah took place, and under Hezekiah that monotheism was established and this was continued by Josiah.

Yahweh was apparently a local tribal God, who was worshipped together with his Asheran (wife) and who was responsible for fertility.

There appears to be no doubt that this was purely a political move by a very savvy tribal chief.

So was morality built on a deliberate lie? Or did we already have the morality and religion was a convenient peg on which to hang its’ hat?

Other Comments by friendlypig

38. Comment #364952 by Mr Embiggen on April 15, 2009 at 6:20 pm

 avatarJonLynnHarvey I think you've highlighted one of the key aspects of the whole argument. Words, definitions and context all change meaning over time. This would seem to be an obvious stumbling block to creating an eternal and unchanging system of morality based upon a single document and interpretations thereof.

'Abomination' as it has been translated and as a cultural concept will obviously change the overall meaning of sentences that contain the word by giving the current interpretation of it. In addition we can only assume we understand the emotional weight and impact of the original words in the actual context of the time. I would therefore be reluctant to compare Dawkins' misquoting a 2000 plus year old text of dubious translation to misquoting a current day piece of the same language, culture, time and context.

I haven't found too many religious proponents/apologists anywhere near as historically or logically (an aspect I find often crucially missing) nuanced as either Peter Ellerton's piece or Dawkins' work. I'd be genuinely interested in reading something that was.

Other Comments by Mr Embiggen

39. Comment #365022 by Sarmatae1 on April 15, 2009 at 11:07 pm

 avatar1. Comment #364161 by root2squared

Class act there r2s that's a keeper. Not often first comment is so good.

Other Comments by Sarmatae1

40. Comment #365049 by IceFreak2000 on April 16, 2009 at 1:32 am

 avatar@root2squared (#1): Just wanted to chime in with my praise as well; one of most keenly observed analogies I've heard in a very long time. Expect to see that one reproduced more than once!

Other Comments by IceFreak2000

41. Comment #365091 by aquilacane on April 16, 2009 at 6:02 am

 avatarThe bummer about picking your morality from the trash bin of religion is that you may pass over very favourable bits of moral fibre for a less nutritional chunk of moral crap.

Do to others as you want done to you vs. hate gay people. Contradicting morals both in the bin, so which do you pick? A truly secular person should know; a religious person, not so sure.

Other Comments by aquilacane

42. Comment #365092 by Steve Zara on April 16, 2009 at 6:10 am

Comment #364161 by root2squared

Good post. But let's not forget that religion gets its morality from us. It has to, as there is no God! So we are the ones who put the trash in the bin along with the food. Also, we see it as trash now, but centuries and millennia ago, it seemed tasty to many.

I guess the point is that reason is a better trash-detector than religion.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

43. Comment #365094 by Tyler Durden on April 16, 2009 at 6:11 am

 avataraquilacane -

The religious don't actually hate gay people, just the "sin" of homosexuality itself, quite simple really. Much like those murdering deranged psychopaths out there in society today, I don't actually hate them, just their actions.

Er, hold on a second...

Other Comments by Tyler Durden

44. Comment #365412 by Eric Blair on April 16, 2009 at 3:41 pm

JonLynnHarvey: A good reminder of the responsibility to be accurate and balanced - though both may suffer if the purpose is to skewer an "argument" rather than to understand a viewpoint.

I think it's a bit simplistic, too, to say there is no basis on which to judge which biblical laws to follow and which to ignore. Unlike the Qu'ran, the Bible is not a single text dictated by God but a collection of histories, sermons, letters and poems all supposedly inspired by God, written over hundreds of years and translated through at least three dead languages.

Analyzing and interpreting this mess of morality and story-telling has always been crucial to Christianity, and controversial. Moreover, reason has also played a key role in explication of the Bible, whether or not the person studying it actually believed in its divine origins.

Finally, morality may not depend on a god to exist but the distinction between god-based and godless morality is subjective. In the absence of a god, all "moralities" come from humans and their various interpretations of "natural" morality. If we find some moral laws or directives distasteful or offensive, it should be their content, not the fact they pretend to "come from God," that turns us off.

EB

Other Comments by Eric Blair

45. Comment #365605 by ridelo on April 17, 2009 at 1:27 am

 avatarWell, I've never been something like a biblical scholar, but by reading here I get the feeling I can floor any theologian.

Other Comments by ridelo

46. Comment #365706 by PabloDF on April 17, 2009 at 8:11 am

@root2squared: I think your "food from the trash" analogy is on the way to become a sucessful meme. People are loving it in Spanish as well. One Catholic that saw it proudly told me that St. Francis of Assisi ate rotten food given to him and learned to find it tasty, and that's one of the reasons why he's a saint. What crap.

@ridelo (#47): You certainly can floor any theologian with only one requirement: "Show me certain proof that God exists". The whole house of cards is based on that, after all. Nice foundation for a morality...

Other Comments by PabloDF

47. Comment #366175 by root2squared on April 17, 2009 at 8:53 pm

 avatar48. Comment #365706 by PabloDF

One Catholic that saw it proudly told me that St. Francis of Assisi ate rotten food given to him and learned to find it tasty, and that's one of the reasons why he's a saint. What crap


Lol...way to miss the point completely. But then, what do you expect from religiobots?

Other Comments by root2squared

48. Comment #366180 by Laurie Fraser on April 17, 2009 at 9:11 pm

 avatar2 - genius, once again. It's often those short sharp shocks of language that have the most effect, and yours is a ripper.

Good article, BTW - who said philosophy was useless, Bonz? :)

Other Comments by Laurie Fraser

49. Comment #366181 by root2squared on April 17, 2009 at 9:22 pm

 avatarLaurie.

Thanks.

Welcome back!

Other Comments by root2squared
Reload Comments | Back to Top

Comment Entry: Please Login

Register a new account

Username:

Password:

This article is reposted from a website that accepts comments.
Why not share your comment on the article there as well? CLICK HERE