The Moral Irresponsibility of Religion

[MCcoins]

A monologue I wrote recently:

 :bananacolor:  

[Gawen]

Pretty good stuff...and I like the poster too... :thumbup:

[ablprop]

Did you ever read "The Wonderful Wizard of Oz"? I remember this distinctly. I was in 4th grade, and our teacher read these words, of the Tin Man after he stepped on a beetle:

Thereafter he walked very carefully, with his eyes on the road, and when he saw a tiny ant toiling by he would step over it, so as not to harm it. The Tin Woodman knew very well he had no heart, and therefore he took great care never to be cruel or unkind to anything.

“You people with hearts,” he said, “have something to guide you, and need never do wrong; but I have no heart, and so I must be very careful.”

I think we atheists are like the Tin Man. Also like Joe in Joe vs. the Volcano, who said, "I have no people of my own. I'm my only hope for a hero." We know that meaning comes from within ourselves. There's great power in that, and also great responsibility. I wouldn't have it any other way.

[Cecilie]

Those dancing bananas. They hurt my eyes.

[Recusant]

Hello and welcome to HAF, MCcoins.  Very nice opening post.  I don't agree with all of the points you make, but it was a fine read; thank you.  I'm only going to look at one issue for now:

An atheist understand that "evil" human actions are biological, evolved mechanisms to keep us safe from predators.

Some atheists may look at the world that way, but I've encountered people who seem motivated by malevolence for it's own sake.  Living comfortably, with no threats to that comfort, such a person may still lash out and be pleased when their efforts are rewarded by anguish and dismay on the part of their chosen target.  Now, one might say that this is merely an aberration, a deviant twisting of some survival mechanism.  It's hard to argue that such a view is incorrect, yet it seems to me that to blame willfully harmful behavior on an atavistic impulse gone wrong is too lenient a view.  Some people are just assholes. That quality no doubt conferred an advantage for some during the evolution of our species, so it wasn't entirely pruned off. In my personal experience, it's not rare to find that an asshole's father is an asshole, and they both do very well in life.

Again, welcome.  I hope you enjoy your time reading and posting here.

[Inevitable Droid]

An atheist understand that "evil" human actions are biological, evolved mechanisms to keep us safe from predators.

It's hard to argue that such a view is incorrect, yet it seems to me that to blame willfully harmful behavior on an atavistic impulse gone wrong is too lenient a view.

I agree.  Mosquitoes evolved, yet we swat them.  Tapeworms evolved, yet we extract them and make them die.

Some people are just assholes. That quality no doubt conferred an advantage for some during the evolution of our species, so it wasn't entirely pruned off. In my personal experience, it's not rare to find that an asshole's father is an asshole, and they both do very well in life.

So have the wise observed for thousands of years.  I will add only that asses are made for kicking.

Some would have it that whatever evolved, because it evolved, must be taken as good, or at least neutral.  This is the danger inherent in positing, first, moral good and evil, and secondly, trying to take our morals from science.  If we reject moral good and evil, and instead calibrate our compasses on practical good and evil, we never will blunder into mental terrain where asses can be viewed as other than kickable.  Moreover, if practical good is our true north, then science will only help us, never hinder us, for science is the treasure map by which we locate hidden chests overflowing with practical good.  The treasure, of course, is knowledge, the goodliest of goods.

[MCcoins]

Some atheists may look at the world that way, but I've encountered people who seem motivated by malevolence for it's own sake.  Living comfortably, with no threats to that comfort, such a person may still lash out and be pleased when their efforts are rewarded by anguish and dismay on the part of their chosen target.

I agree entirely, some people are just evil mother f---ers.  I believe the "lust for blood" you describe was greatly advantageous for our ancestors, given their harsh environment.  Those creatures more willing to commit violence had a better chance to survive than their victims, in a sense.  Also, our species' history is filled with tribal battle, and natural selection always favors the battle victor.  Rape in our early history plays greatly in my opinion to the procreation of violent genes.  Even to this day, occupiers and invaders will take the women of the land by will or force.

The point I was trying to make is that religion describes good/evil as something external, therefore making you less responsible for it.  Placing the struggle between good and evil outside of one's control and into an imaginary deity is a dangerous thing to do.  Thinking that evil is a cosmic force makes it more intimidating, and harder to grapple with.  (Think of the Witch Hunts, and imagine if those responsible didn't believe that an evil force called "Satan" could have minions or "witches")  Evolutionists can see the signs of anger arising within himself, and we better understand the consequences of our actions as permanent on Earth, and not something that can be washed away by asking God for forgiveness.  We are all in some degree of control of our emotions, I feel that religion makes people more prone to give in to those first hints of rage.  Personally, the "evil" in my own heart is easier to grapple with now that I understand its roots.

Christianity provides a "get out of hell free card" because Jeebus died for our sins.  I find it repulsive that after describing the proper way to live a Christian life, the book provides an all-encompassing shortcut to "heaven" that is moot in regards to morality.  To think that all the evils a man can endure to other humans can be wiped clean, this doesn't keep people from "sinning" in fact it encourages it.  No one is the same, but when I was a Christian I remember literally promising God that I would repent after I stole something.  I also find it sickening that Jeebus is supposed to set an example of "what we deserve" for our sinful nature that was (according to the Bible) entirely involuntary.

People often make the argument that atheists have better morality simply by looking at the concentration of religion in prisons.  In America, atheists make up 8-16% and Christians more than 70%.  In prison, less than 1% of the prison inmates are atheists, while Christianity still makes up over 70%.  I make the argument that religion is appealing to those of lower fiscal standing.  I follow the view that crime is caused by poverty and harsh living conditions.  These people live difficult lives and religion appeals to that.  The book of Job describes the ultimate suffering, and Jeebus sets the example of how much suffering we "deserve".  As a result, a person living through daily trials of trying to feed his/her family tells themselves "it could be much worse".  I don't make it a point to harass people who turn to God because their lives are difficult.  I understand it really can help people living difficult lives keep their heads on their shoulders.

Thank you for the feedback, it was very insightful.

-Eric

[Voter]

Religion causes moral irresponsibility because it places the battle between good and evil above one's existence. Those of the religious persuasion believe that good and evil are cosmic forces that are constantly at war (God vs. Satan), therefore removing the "first person" perspective of good and evil.

While Biblically there are unseen forces of good and evil at war, that doesn't put us out of the battle. See Eph 6:10-17, where Christians are described as participating soldiers, not passive observants.

An atheist must come to bear with his/her own faults and deal with the problems he/she faces as a result of their actions.

Theists also have worldly consequences for their actions.

It is, in my opinion, more responsible to be an atheist because you and only you are responsible for your actions.

It is IMO less of a responsibility to be an atheist because you have the final say in what is moral or immoral.

[LegendarySandwich]

It is IMO less of a responsibility to be an atheist because you have the final say in what is moral or immoral.

How is having to think for yourself and come to your own decisions about what is right and wrong less of a responsibility? The logic isn't following.

[MCcoins]

While Biblically there are unseen forces of good and evil at war, that doesn't put us out of the battle. See Eph 6:10-17, where Christians are described as participating soldiers, not passive observants.

The term "soldiers" gives me chills because it implies war, which religion promotes.  The idea that we are locked in a cosmic battle between good and evil is unsettling.

Theists also have worldly consequences for their actions.

Indeed for their actions, I worry about where they believe evil comes from.  They believe the source of evil is external not internal, which drains responsibility.  If one harms another, they must simply pray for forgiveness after the fact, and possibly apologize to the person involved.  What good does that do in ridding the world of "sin"?  I make the argument that atheists, being more in-tune with their biological instincts, are better at understanding the "evil" in their hearts, making them less vulnerable to commit violence.

It is IMO less of a responsibility to be an atheist because you have the final say in what is moral or immoral.

As if the Bible is any better?  Rape, we can all agree, is a serious problem. So what does the Holy Bible say about it?
Judges 5:30
Judges 21:10-24
Exodus 21:7-11
Numbers 31:7-18
Deuteronomy 22:28-29
Deuteronomy 22:23-24
2 Samuel 12:11-14
Deuteronomy 21:10-14
Zechariah 14:1-2

These are just a few verses that refer to rape as "ok".  God even assists with it in some cases.  Considering how rape is such a horrendous crime, wouldn't you expect that "Thou Shalt not Force Thyself onto Another" or "Thou shalt not rape" would have been in the 10 commandments?  No, because it was "normal" back then.  Our consciousness as a species evolves as does our morality.  Man kind does not need a benevolent deity staring us down from outer space for us to live moral lives.  I wonder about the state of your mentality if you think that we need god to tell us not to murder each-other.  Our species doesn't tolerate murder to this day, not because god told us, but because we know its wrong.  Think of all the other places in the world that have harsh punishments for murder, without being Christian?  If people welcomed killers into their community, no one would have survived.  Those more willing to exile/execute murderers lived to pass on their genes.

[Voter]

How is having to think for yourself and come to your own decisions about what is right and wrong less of a responsibility? The logic isn't following.

I'm not speaking of the process of reaching a moral code. In that regard, the Christian has the responsibility to read and consider the Bible at the very least. The atheist has no such responsibility. While he has the option of contemplating right and wrong, he doesn't have to do so.

But, my point regarded responsibility to the resulting code. The atheist, having no text which he must reconcile to, has greater freedom to tailor the code to his pre-existing desires. Hence, less real responsibility.

[Voter]

The term "soldiers" gives me chills because it implies war, which religion promotes.  The idea that we are locked in a cosmic battle between good and evil is unsettling.

All moral issues are unsettling. THey wouldn't be moral issues otherwise.

Indeed for their actions, I worry about where they believe evil comes from.  They believe the source of evil is external not internal, which drains responsibility.  If one harms another, they must simply pray for forgiveness after the fact, and possibly apologize to the person involved.  What good does that do in ridding the world of "sin"?  I make the argument that atheists, being more in-tune with their biological instincts, are better at understanding the "evil" in their hearts, making them less vulnerable to commit violence.

I'm surprised that you believe that people are inherently internally evil.

As if the Bible is any better?  Rape, we can all agree, is a serious problem. So what does the Holy Bible say about it?
Judges 5:30
Judges 21:10-24
Exodus 21:7-11
Numbers 31:7-18
Deuteronomy 22:28-29
Deuteronomy 22:23-24
2 Samuel 12:11-14
Deuteronomy 21:10-14
Zechariah 14:1-2

These are just a few verses that refer to rape as "ok".

No, they aren't. We can discuss singly if you like.

God even assists with it in some cases.  Considering how rape is such a horrendous crime, wouldn't you expect that "Thou Shalt not Force Thyself onto Another" or "Thou shalt not rape" would have been in the 10 commandments?  No, because it was "normal" back then.  Our consciousness as a species evolves as does our morality.  Man kind does not need a benevolent deity staring us down from outer space for us to live moral lives.  I wonder about the state of your mentality if you think that we need god to tell us not to murder each-other.  Our species doesn't tolerate murder to this day, not because god told us, but because we know its wrong.  Think of all the other places in the world that have harsh punishments for murder, without being Christian?  If people welcomed killers into their community, no one would have survived.  Those more willing to exile/execute murderers lived to pass on their genes.

Why don't you consider rape to merely be a method of passing on one's genes? Why did evolution make men on average larger and stronger than, and hence able to overpower, women? If a rapist made this argument, how would you refute it?

[MCcoins]

I'm surprised that you believe that people are inherently internally evil.

Yes but it is biological.  We are evil because our ancestors were violent, it helped them survive.

Why don't you consider rape to merely be a method of passing on one's genes? Why did evolution make men on average larger and stronger than, and hence able to overpower, women? If a rapist made this argument, how would you refute it?

Are you purposefully misinterpreting my statements?  Rape, while horrendous, did perpetuate genes in our ancestry.  Our past is cloaked in tribal warfare between men, the stronger ones survived and copulated with the victim population.  You make a moot point.

[MCcoins]

All moral issues are unsettling. THey wouldn't be moral issues otherwise.

You are bloody stupid.  There is no cosmic war between the forces of good and evil.  Thinking there is an unseen war between demons and angels is insane.  Good and evil take place on a personal level in individuals, externalizing the battle makes people less responsible.

[LegendarySandwich]

As if the Bible is any better?  Rape, we can all agree, is a serious problem. So what does the Holy Bible say about it?
Judges 5:30
Judges 21:10-24
Exodus 21:7-11
Numbers 31:7-18
Deuteronomy 22:28-29
Deuteronomy 22:23-24
2 Samuel 12:11-14
Deuteronomy 21:10-14
Zechariah 14:1-2

These are just a few verses that refer to rape as "ok".

No, they aren't. We can discuss singly if you like.

You're just going to give bullshit rationalization for why those passages say that rape is okay, I bet.