Slashdot Mirror

Well, we Christians, prefer evidence and logic, and leave appeals to authority to you athiests ;-). Judge the arguments not the man.

The point, when I wrote "let us trust a literary professor on science and mathematical models of morals", was that Lewis was not only light years outside his domain of expertise when he discussed human behaviour and morals in different cultures (anthropology and evolutionary biology) -- but that even most of the relevant research was done far after the book was written...

Certainly, some things are universal and built in -- anger, sadness, grief, etc. Most of these are even identifiable in animals with complex brains. Also, some things are universal in all cultures like rape, religion, murder, some morals, war and theft. Most of those are identifiable in chimpanzees, too. That is quite logical -- just game theory. I really can't see how you can reach the idea of a god from that -- and think it is Xian.

But maybe I should read C S Lewis. How does he answer the basic problem of theology -- why accept something for true without any reason? (Consider that (a) there are innumerable theories and (b) a very small percentage of people brought up in a religion switches, and most I've seen haven't been that mentally stable. So Dawkin's indoctrination argument seem good.)

CS Lewis was very fond of Norse mythology, as was his friend JRR Tolkien.

I know so much. Quite a few years ago, I read the start of his biography until he got religion. I remember that I wasn't impressed by his reasoning.

Zeus would be pissed to know that his minions screwed up our genes so we'd believe in the wrong god.

Seneca nailed it in his Natural History when he said Gods were the answer to questions we haven't explained yet.

So > ignorance ~ > theism.

Apply to your average American.

Smarter than most population? In what? Could you repair cars like the local mechanic, run a minute-mile, sing soul-stirring songs without a care?
Intellectual eliticism will lead us nowhere, and intellect is quite different from wisdom. And neither is the true meaning of religion is not found in churches, mosques, or synagogues.

Why is the question of theism/ atheism so important? Should it not come after we have answered the more basic question of whether we are living our lives in the right manner?

The evidence is that I have directly experienced God's presence. So have a lot of other people.

I do not believe it is a hallucination, because it is too different from normal life to be derived from other experiences or from the normal functioning of the brain. Also, the majority of people who report such experiences are otherwise perfectly sane. We are drawn from a huge range of cultures, religious backgrounds, social and personal circumstances and historical periods, which also argues against it being a delusion (of the kind suffered by "UFO abductees" for example).

On the other hand I am beginning to wonder is Slashdot is a hallucination - it is certainly weird enough.

I do think that people who do not have a real reason for belief can only honestly be agnostic (or perhaps atheist). I used to be agnostic myself.

The gist of it is this -- we all seem to have some innate sense of morality that transcends culture and societies. (The idea that actions can be right and wrong is pretty much ubiquitous, regardless of whether a particular act is socially acceptable.)

Let me show you an example of that moral sense. Take two tests for me. Here's the first one - a set of cards with letters on one side and numbers on the other. Which cards do you have to flip to determine if the following condition holds: "If there's a D on one side, then there's a 3 on the other.":

D / F / 3 / 7

Okay, now here's another test. You have a set of cards before you. Each card has information about patrons in a bar. On one side is what they are drinking, on another side is their ages.

Drinking wine / Drinking soda / 25 years old / 16 years old

Now, let's say you're the bouncer at that bar. Your job is to make sure that no one under the age of 21 is drinking alcohol. Which of the above cards do you need to flip over to see if that condition is met?

Most people have a lot of trouble with the first test, but find the second test pretty easy. The answer's the same in both cases - the first and the last card. Note that the logical structure is exactly equivalent in both versions. A lot of research has been done on this stuff, and it seems pretty well demonstrated at this point that the reason why the second test is so easy is because it asks people to detect if a social contract is being violated - in other words, it asks people to spot cheating. And people seem to have "hardware accelerated modules" in their brains for doing just that.

Now, can you imagine why social animals, that live in groups, might do well to have such talents? Note that analogous skills have been observed in other relatively intelligent social animals like chimps and dolphins.

So, considering that humans have been around for roughly 100,000 years (and near-human ancestors for a few million years before that), living in pretty much the same environment (physical and social) and facing pretty much the same challenges (physical and social) for all that time... do you think it likely that a 'general moral sense' might develop via evolution?

So, yeah, I don't find that 'shared morality' argument to be terribly convincing for theism.

...then logically you have no reason to comply with society's proscribed values other than avoiding retribution for your anti-social actions.

Um, actually, there might be other alternatives.

Oh yeah, let us trust a literary professor on science and mathematical models of morals which were invented far after he wrote the book! :-)

Well, we Christians, prefer evidence and logic, and leave appeals to authority to you athiests ;-). Judge the arguments not the man.

The Mere Assertions article is grossly unfair. Lewis uses analogies - but to illuminate, not to blur. His argument about a moral law is made at greater length in another book which implicitly answers these criticisms. Moral law is NOT Lewis's reason for belief or faith. The other thing is that Mere Christianity cover a lot of ground, and a lot of things in it are discussed in more detail elsewhere by Lewis (in "The Abolition of Man" in the case of absolute vs relative morality) or by other writers.

Finally, I am fan of CS Lewis, and I was one even when I was an agnostic, because his books taught me to the value of intellectual honesty, in particular the importance of accepting the conclusion of a logical argument even if it is not what you want to believe.

And if you want to e.g. argue that war has always been seen as "necessary evil" and not a standard way of doing "business", then read up on clan societies and the old Asa (Norse, for English speaking) religion with holmgång and heaven only for those dead in battle!

The sources that you are using are incomplete. They do not seperate anti-theism and atheism. I have looked at both the Merriam-Webster dictionary and here is no definition for anti-theism at all. That is why in their case they have just combined the two definitions into one word. This works fine because that is the definition that is more commonly used (incorrectly however) for the word atheism.

The Wikipedia passage that you quoted actually does mention the more correct defintion for the word atheism.

However, others--including most atheistic philosophers and groups--define atheism as the simple absence of belief in deities

You can define atheist as anything you want, but I will let the atheists decide how the word is to be defined. Even if the rest of the world wants their own definition (which conveniently paints atheists in a bad light), you cannot criticize a group of people for opinions that they have never had. Keep your misconceptions, but atheism is not a belief that there is no God. It is the lack of belief in a God.

--

Are you sure you are not confusing "Mere Christianity", with "The Abolition of Man". I am not sure if the argument is in the former, but it is certainly presented very well in the latter.

He also does not argue that it is a reason for believing in Christianity, he argues for absolute morality against moral relativism - his basic point is that moral relativism always relies on some part of the innate morality, it connot work by itself.

Oh joy, he quotes a noted Christian author and I skip right over the first line. Sorry to the grandparent poster!!! I'll go wash my glasses now....

FTFA:

Atran says he faces an emotional and intellectual struggle to live without God in a nonatheist world...

This thinking is what really bothers me. Atheism is not the beleif; theism is. If you're an atheist you are not practicing a form of religion, you're not practicing a form of religion.

This seems to be one of Richard Dawkins's favorite things to say. I don't know if you're simply repeating what he says or if you came up with this yourself. I don't mean to offend, but this argument makes you sound either:

1.) Ignorant (if you don't understand what theism is) or

2.) Malicious (if you are trying to warp its meaning to suit your argument)

Since Dawkins is a well-educated man, I would guess that his use of "theism" in this way is malicious. As for you, you may simply be ignorant (nothing wrong with that, but until you learn the most basic terms of arguments about God/gods, you probably should simply avoid the arguments).

The definition of theism is simply:

"Theism is the belief in the existence of one or more gods or deities." - wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theism)

"belief in the existence of a god or gods; specifically : belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of the human race and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world" - Webster (http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourcei d=Mozilla-search&va=theism)

So you see that Joe, who is a Lutheran and believes in the Christian God is a theist even though he does not believe in Zeus.

I did check on the definitions, and I would suggest that you are tilting things a bit in favor of your personal beliefs. Merriam Webster defines as such:

Atheism:
1 archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2 a: a disbelief in the existence of deity b: the doctrine that there is no deity

Agnostic
1: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
2: a person unwilling to commit to an opinion about something (political agnostics)

For a second source, here is what Wikipedia says on the matter:

Atheism is the disbelief[1] in the existence of any deities.[2] It is contrasted with theism, the belief in a God or gods. Atheism is commonly defined as the positive belief that deities do not exist, or as the deliberate rejection of theism.[3][4][5] However, others--including most atheistic philosophers and groups--define atheism as the simple absence of belief in deities[6][7][8] (cf. nontheism), thereby designating many agnostics, and people who have never heard of gods, such as newborn children, as atheists as well.[9][10] In recent years, some atheists have adopted the terms strong and weak atheism to clarify whether they consider their stance one of positive belief (strong atheism) or the mere absence of belief (weak atheism).

And here is what it says on agnosticism:

Agnosticism (from the Greek a, meaning "without" and gnosis, "knowledge", translating to unknowable) is the philosophical view that the truth value of certain claims--particularly theological claims regarding metaphysics, afterlife or the existence of God, god(s), or deities--is unknown or (possibly) inherently unknowable.

Every source I could find declared atheism to be the disbelief of a higher power, and agnosticism to encompass both lack of belief or the belief in an inability to prove the existence of a higher power. If you are going to criticize people for not doing the research, at least have the courtesy to do it yourself.

If you believe that there is some supernatural force instilling this in us, then you have a sound basis for acting according to a certain moral code.

Uh, no. You seem to be coming from a religious background where worshipping something because it created you was enough reason. If there is some supernatural force trying to instill action, why should I assume that is a "sound basis" for acting a certain way? That doesn't make sense.

If your conscience is merely something that society has taught you, then logically you have no reason to comply with society's proscribed values other than avoiding retribution for your anti-social actions. This tends to lead toward the moral relativity direction, which I think most people find uncomfortable and counter-intuitive.

No, that isn't logical. You assume on one hand that if a supernatural force posits something, that one should believe it. And if society posits it, one should ignore it (except where it has actual force over you). A logical problem!

I have trouble with this concept of "moral relativity". What do you mean by it?

If someone wants to have a reason to act in society's interest, how about the realization that cooperating allows things that otherwise can't happen (a large, civil society, super highways). Generally I feel that things should be structured such that people are guided by their lower self-interest toward the desired ends, and that the higher self-interest (a realization perhaps like that in A Beautiful Mind where he sees that by cooperating and avoiding competition for the highest interest (the blond) everyone could get a 2nd best (a brunette))...my brunette just walked in. You were saying something??

If you believe that there is some supernatural force instilling this in us, then you have a sound basis for acting according to a certain moral code.

No, you really don't. Not unless you have a sound reason for believing in a supernatural force, too.

I think that genetic code itself is an amazingly complex and intelligent set of instructions that, in itself, leads me to believe in a intelligent creator rather than random or chaotic evolution.

I see science, in the future, being able to blame every propensity you have or don't have on a genetic basis. Before long they will predict your every choice after a simple DNA scan. Perhaps then we will be able to create a more perfect human race, weeding out weak religious propensity, and fulfill the dream of a man who once ruled Germany. ;-)

My guess would be, because in the smart persons search for a greater understanding of the world, that's what their teachers tell them to do.

You must have had great teachers. Mostly, my teachers (I am including my parents and others, i.e. Sunday School teachers in this definition) told me to shut up and learn so I could pass the exam. I don't remember being instructed by anyone to gain a greater understanding of the world beyond the narrow confines of their own subject of study, or system of beliefs. I think truly "smart" people will seek that out of their own volition.

If your understanding of the world is taken from a single source (Bible, etc) or at the very least, heavily influenced or constrained by that source, then what kind of reasoning and understanding can you really have while maintaining your faith? Encounter a scientific or even philosophical argument that contradicts your religious views and you're probably going to reject it, or at least accept it in a debased form to fit your own views. Is that a good way to develop a greater understanding?

Of course, part of ascribing to many religions is that a lot of your understanding of the world and your place in it has already been neatly and conveniently codified in book form (parchment, whatever) thousands of years ago, so you can just accept it and you don't have to think about the hard questions if you don't want to. I'm sure quite a few people fit into the "don't want to" category, even some "smart" ones.

But what do I know? I've been sitting on the fence overlooking both atheism and theism for years now. It looks far too crowded down there. :)

One of the obvious mistakes Lewis makes here is that he presents two options both of which pressupose a belief in morality and ethics..

Mmm, this part looks really stupid to me.
When you raise a child, do you have to teach him not to steal or bully other child?
The answer is yes, so it seems that this moral conscience is not something built-in so innate but taught.

Of course, this begs the questions of why parents teach their child about right or wrong, well what they teach their child is the socially acceptable behaviours and the one which are not.

>logically you have no reason to comply with society's proscribed values other than avoiding retribution for your anti-social actions.
And many people do immoral acts if 1) they're sure they won't be caught 2) these acts gives them something.

> So, the reason some people would choose to believe in a god is that they'd prefer to live in a world with a moral absolute.
That's a weird reason given that there are so many different gods and religions so no moral absolute.

>is there a moral absolute or not?
Easy answer: No. If there was a moral absolute, how do you explain that for every moral rules we can think of, we can find several societies which has ignored this rule?

Lewis does address this theory- really, check him out sometime for a sane, non-American fundy view of Christianity. He actually leaves room for genetic and social origins of some morality

Oh yeah, let us trust a literary professor on science and mathematical models of morals which were invented far after he wrote the book! :-)

I was going to read C S Lewis when I was looking for theist arguments, but I lost interest after reading about Mere Assertions:

Lewis goes to great anecdotal length to argue for the existence of a "Natural Law" of morality within each human. Unlike the law of gravity, though, this moral law can be disobeyed.

"This law was called the Law of Nature," he writes, "because people thought that every one knew it by nature and did not need to be taught it. They did not mean, of course, that you might not find an odd individual here and there who did not know it, just as you find a few people who are colourblind or have no ear for a tune. But taking the race as a whole, they thought that the human idea of decent behaviour was obvious to every one. And I believe they were right." [...]

Lewis does not believe that differing civilizations have had differing moralities: " . . . these have never amounted to anything like a total difference." (Oh? What about culturally sanctioned polygamy, infanticide, cannibalism, wife beating, self mutilation, castration, incest and war?) He dismisses the critics who claim that morality is a result of the species' survival instinct by noting that we are free to obey or disobey this "instinct" and make our decision by a higher standard of Right and Wrong. "You might as well say the sheet music which tells you, at a given moment, to play one of the notes on the piano and not another, is itself one of the notes on the keyboard. The Moral Law tells us the tune we have to play: our instincts are merely the keys."

And if you want to e.g. argue that war has always been seen as "necessary evil" and not a standard way of doing "business", then read up on clan societies and the old Asa (Norse, for English speaking) religion with holmgång and heaven only for those dead in battle!