Kenneth Miller's New Book - Only a Theory...

[_The Nehor]

History also seems to me to show that a believed and cherished religion system leads to a stable society.

Examples?

Less stable religions with more violent and capricious gods, no real afterlife, and more fear then devotion towards their gods don't last as long, are more plagued by internal conflict, etc.

Examples?

The more cynical approach to this is to call it an 'opiate of the masses'.

According to your first statement, only believed and cherished religions are an "opiate".

I don't think it's likely that we can get to that point again though.

Get back to what point?

Okay, for stable societies I'd give out Egypt, the Jews, and China.

For unstable ones, the Huns and the Babylonians spring to mind.

Yes, to be an effective 'opiate of the masses' people have to be satisfied with the religion.

The point I was referring to was where a nation or nation-state was united by one common culture and one common religion. I don't think we'll return to that state for good or ill.

[_Moniker]

When looking at the longevity of societies I think some of the best examples of stable ones would be Egypt and China. Both had conflict but they survived mostly unscathed for over a millenium with a stable belief system that sometimes grew richer and sometimes poorer but was still there.

So, you're okay with religion being a unifying force even if it's not Christianity? What about here in America? :)

Mon, my point really had nothing to do with God or the supernatural. While I suspect God may have aided in the creation of belief systems I don't think that's what is important for stability. I also don't think Japan is a good example of a stable society. It's lasted just over 60 years since they repudiated the Emperor as divine, not what I would call long-term.

About the "divinity" of the Emperor: He merely gave up political power and went back to a traditional role. http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions ... or_1.shtml

The end of divinity

When the Emperor gave up his divinity on the orders of the USA, in the Imperial rescript of January 1 1946, he in fact gave up nothing that he had ever had, but simply restated an earlier traditional set of beliefs about the Imperial family.

The Emperor continued to claim direct descent from Amaterasu and the priestly status that this inheritance gave him, but his ritual functions ceased being National tasks and became (as they had been through most of Japanese history) private Shinto devotions designed to preserve the good fortune of Japan, and the continuity of the Imperial line.

Don't want to get sidetracked... yet, yanno, Shinto is something I'm interested in and had to set the record straight.

I personally don't think man can create ethical systems without God. I do think they can do it without acknowledging God. In any case, atheism/agnosticism is not an ethical system shared by a collective group in any real way. Confucianism and some forms of Buddhism are.

No one is saying atheism is an ethical system. What ethical systems has God come up with? Doesn't it seem that we've sort of surpassed the 10 commandments?

Nehor, do you agree that evolution is dangerous? Would we be immoral without God belief?

[_Moniker]

And finally, finally, as a bit of fun read this from DCP:

He won't be caught dead defending that online against someone who has decent knowledge of the subject.

Why don't you start a thread on it?

[_beastie]

Well, Japan is almost entirely secular now (ethics are traced to Confucianism and Buddhism and their culture is Shinto). Yet, the Japanese themselves created the religion, right, Nehor? They still have that same culture (which was created by them!) without the necessity of the supernatural anymore. And if you're willing to admit that the Japanese created their own society, beliefs, religions, ethical conduct (unless you think that their mythology was not manmade) then we can see how man himself figures out ethical systems without the need of God.

This seems so obvious, doesn't it? Yet theists seem to have a spectacular lack of imagination when it comes to this issue.

Talking about religion bringing stability - the Maya civilization was actually pretty stable for a very long time, and yet it was predicated on a religion that had ceremonial human sacrifice.

[_The Nehor]

No one is saying atheism is an ethical system. What ethical systems has God come up with? Doesn't it seem that we've sort of surpassed the 10 commandments?

Nehor, do you agree that evolution is dangerous? Would we be immoral without God belief?

Surpassed the Ten Commandments? I'd say no.

Let's take them in order:

1. No, we have many other gods before gods in the sense that we worship things in hopes of them saving/aiding us.
2. Change graven to manufactured and we're doing pretty bad.
3. God's name is often taken in vain both in the sense of used casually and in the sense of being used to justify evil.
4. The Sabbath is largely ignored.
5. Mixed results, some honor their parents and some don't.
6. Murder is as much a problem as it ever was.
7. Adultery, we've failed utterly.
8. Theft (in all forms from petty to burglary to white-collar theft) has not gone anywhere.
9. Lying is not a crime and is now accepted as a good idea in many circumstances.
10. Envy is everywhere from desire for costly apparel to class warfare.

I don't think we've surpassed the Ten Commandments at all. Replaced them? Maybe but I think the big problem with our society is we've obsessed on the virtue of kindness far too much to the detriment of every other virtue. The joke being that most people can believe they're kind when they're not. It's easy to think your heart is in the right place when you're happy even if you rarely ever make a sacrifice for others or aid them unless it's in your interest. It's much harder to convince yourself that you're chaste or brave or even-tempered.

Is evolution dangerous? Depends on what you mean. If you mean the body of scientific evidence that creatures change over time and have been for millenia then no, I don't think it's dangerous at all. If you mean the evolution myth that will lead us to becoming better and that all things tend towards improvement then yes, I think it's dangerous. If you mean the snide dismissal some people give to the concept of God because they watched a half-hour documentary of evolution and can now dismiss the idea of God without thinking about it, then yes, I think that is dangerous. The solution is more knowledge, not less. This is true of most things. Islamic and Christian terrorists (throughout history) often are and were illiterate of their own religion beyond a few slogans and a lot of zeal. Someone with a weak understanding of genetics and history invented Nazism, not knowledgeable experts.

Would we be immoral without belief in God? The idea of moral vs. immoral people is a fallacy. Everyone is somewhere on a spectrum. Do I think belief in and contact with my God makes me better? Yes. Do I think someone who is fanatically devoted to the Assyrian or Aztec god of war is likely to be more moral then an atheist? No.

God though is not as interested in morality as he is in changing people into glorified immortal beings. One of the signs of someone on that path is you become more moral (in terms of the morality laid down in heaven, Jesus was crucified as a monster and heretic and was likely thought to be immoral). However in the end God wants you to surrender to him so he can make you into a Christ. Becoming good outside that path may make you more pleasant but it won't exalt you. Jesus was also mocked for what terrible people he attracted. As C.S. Lewis said, it's possible for a raddled angry harlot to be closer to God then a hypocrite at the altar imagining himself to be what he is not. Better yet to be neither though.

[_Scottie]

Okay, for stable societies I'd give out Egypt, the Jews, and China.

For unstable ones, the Huns and the Babylonians spring to mind.

I'm not very good at history, but didn't the Huns and Babylonians rule a pretty large portion of Asia for a while? What about the religious civilizations they conquered that are no longer civilizations?

[_Moniker]

I don't think we've surpassed the Ten Commandments at all. Replaced them?

Surpass means go beyond -- they are simplistic and the first few actually have no discernible impact on how we interact with other humans, at all!

Let's take murder, for example. What is God's position on stem cell research? Abortion where a mother's life is in jeopardy? War when there is not imminent threat? The death penalty?

What about basic human rights? What about legislation to ensure that children are not in sweat shops? What about legislation that ensures people can seek relief when they are defrauded. What about ethical codes of conduct that are created for certain professions to ensure proper conduct? What about debates that weigh individual concerns vs. societal concerns across the political issue spectrum?

Aren't we still hashing these out in society? Who is coming up with the legislation? Who is debating the issues? We are.

Maybe but I think the big problem with our society is we've obsessed on the virtue of kindness far too much to the detriment of every other virtue.

I see the precise opposite of this. I think kindness is undervalued in our society.

The joke being that most people can believe they're kind when they're not. It's easy to think your heart is in the right place when you're happy even if you rarely ever make a sacrifice for others or aid them unless it's in your interest. It's much harder to convince yourself that you're chaste or brave or even-tempered.

I don't even understand what point you're attempting to make.

Is evolution dangerous? Depends on what you mean. If you mean the body of scientific evidence that creatures change over time and have been for millenia then no, I don't think it's dangerous at all. If you mean the evolution myth that will lead us to becoming better and that all things tend towards improvement then yes, I think it's dangerous.

I don't know what you mean precisely by "improvement". Improvement in terms of survival is one thing, yet, I don't know how you're using the word. Are you talking about survival of the fittest and superman type of thinking here?

If you mean the snide dismissal some people give to the concept of God because they watched a half-hour documentary of evolution and can now dismiss the idea of God without thinking about it, then yes, I think that is dangerous.

Why is it dangerous that people can dismiss God? Because they won't be exalted? Why precisely is it dangerous for someone to dismiss God? Just so you know I lost my belief in God as a pre-teen and I hadn't even watched any evolution clips.

Watch out! I'm uber dangerous!

Would we be immoral without belief in God? The idea of moral vs. immoral people is a fallacy. Everyone is somewhere on a spectrum. Do I think belief in and contact with my God makes me better? Yes. Do I think someone who is fanatically devoted to the Assyrian or Aztec god of war is likely to be more moral then an atheist? No.

I actually don't even think in terms of morality -- I think in terms of ethical conduct.

As C.S. Lewis said, it's possible for a raddled angry harlot to be closer to God then a hypocrite at the altar imagining himself to be what he is not. Better yet to be neither though.

Well, seeing that I'm neither a harlot or a hypocrite I guess I'm doing okay. :)

[_The Nehor]

Okay, for stable societies I'd give out Egypt, the Jews, and China.

For unstable ones, the Huns and the Babylonians spring to mind.

I'm not very good at history, but didn't the Huns and Babylonians rule a pretty large portion of Asia for a while? What about the religious civilizations they conquered that are no longer civilizations?

They ruled it but not for very long. Their empires were an explosion in history. They came, they conquered, they faded away in only a few centuries. I didn't say religion was the main factor. I meant an enduring, devoted religion that the people liked, favored, and made a big deal about. They Egyptians, Chinese, and Jews loved their relgion and it was a key part of their life and most of them tried to live it. They did conquer a few civilizations. Heck, Babylon conquered Egypt. Egypt is still here, Babylon is not.

[_The Nehor]

Let's take murder, for example. What is God's position on stem cell research? Abortion where a mother's life is in jeopardy? War when there is not imminent threat? The death penalty?

What about basic human rights? What about legislation to ensure that children are not in sweat shops? What about legislation that ensures people can seek relief when they are defrauded. What about ethical codes of conduct that are created for certain professions to ensure proper conduct? What about debates that weigh individual concerns vs. societal concerns across the political issue spectrum?

Aren't we still hashing these out in society? Who is coming up with the legislation? Who is debating the issues? We are.

Why is it dangerous that people can dismiss God? Because they won't be exalted? Why precisely is it dangerous for someone to dismiss God? Just so you know I lost my belief in God as a pre-teen and I hadn't even watched any evolution clips.

Watch out! I'm uber dangerous!

Yeah, we're debating the issues. Are we improving? I don't know. I doubt it and the main reason I doubt is that so many people seem to want to convince me we are. Are we living the Ten Commandments? No. We create professional codes of conduct because so few act ethically. We have rules to keep some people from preying on others. This can be a good thing. It's also an attribute of secret combinations. Honor among thieves. We weigh issues but are we improving? I don't think so. In Rome the ethical debates about high ethics consumed the educated among the Republic when ethical conduct had long since vanished.

I'm saying it's dangerous to take a lazy stance based on easy information because it encourages lazy thinking. It's even more dangerous when you're discussing the question of God which (if he exists) is the most important question there is. You're not dangerous to others (usually) but from where I'm looking it's dangerous to yourself.

[_EAllusion]

Just because we call an area of the world Egypt and we refer to the various dynastic periods controlling territory in and around Egypt as Egyptian that does not mean they are meaningfully connected civilizations or that it makes a lick of sense to call the history of those civilizations stable.