Should atheism be suppressed?

Schuhart

I'm going to try to do Devil's err... I mean God's Advocate on this.

Plato, in considering the ideal republic, felt that atheism posed a threat to public morality that could not be allowed to go unchecked. Hence, he proposed that it would be justified to execute an unrepentant atheist.

In general, Plato felt that only some people are capable of handling the truth (recalling Jack Nicholson’s lines in ‘A Few Good Men’). In his view, the general population needs to get its morality delivered to it in the form of an unquestioned myth.

I’ll try to move this argument into terms that might be relevant today. Atheists tend to be better educated and better educated people tend to have more going for them in terms of money, career and lifestyle. Hence, we are unlikely to exhibit features that reveal a breakdown in moral order both because we have a vested interest in society continuing to function to protect our money/career/lifestyle plus (hopefully) the fact that we tend to be better educated means we are better able to make judgements and, in general, we may have life experiences that make us used to handling responsibility.

On the other hand, we have the Westies. Take the God out of people who don’t have much by way of career and lifestyle. Grant them the perception to be able to see that, without considerable effort, life is unlikely to deliver them a particularly comfortable life. Maybe even tag on an awareness that people who grew up in households with better circumstances will obtain a comfortable life without facing similar obstacles, so there’s no particular reason to see society as anything more than an arrangement that protects privilege. Result: someone with a selfish moral outlook that an atheist perspective cannot alter.

If this is true, why has society not broken down completely yet? Because, as said at the outset, atheism hasn’t yet spread widely enough beyond people who are educated and well off. When it does, we’ll see far more Westies who simply see no reason to intrinsically value the life of another.

Hence, atheism cannot be allowed to replace religion in the general population. Hence, its spread needs to be suppressed. As part of this, atheists have a duty to cloak their disbelief and pretend they adhere to a faith. Anyone refusing to take part in this charade is so dangerous that sanctions should be applied – either execution as proposed by Plato or (perhaps) admission to psychiatric care in the modern world.

All views welcome.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

well, plato did try to put his ideal society to the test twice in syracuse I think it was.. it failed, pretty monstrously. Think both times he had to flee the city.

plato's a tit

Adyx

Atheists are better educated? :eek:

pH

It's a strange road we're heading down where 'faith based communities' are putting aside their differences to fight the common enemy of 'atheism'. By any definition of the word, most religious believers are atheists to some Gods, yet those who view atheism as a bad thing must be a subjecting themselves form of cognitive dissonance.

If they were being honest about it then a Christian doesn't believe in a Hindu's gods and vice versa.

At the heart of this seems to be a form of agreement between religious institutions not to criticise each other's beliefs. When was the last time you heard a Christian leader trying to tell Jews that they are completely wrong, the Messiah has already returned and they all missed him, and how often to we hear senior Rabbis trying to tell us that Jesus was just a man and that Christians have fallen off the path and need to stop following a false prophet.

It amazes me that 2 religious people with completely different beliefs can tolerate each other (and even respect the other's beliefs) yet find total non-belief so hard to accept.

In her heart a devoted follower of Jesus *must* know that a Sikh is worshipping false Gods, yet somehow she accepts this as OK - I fail to see how a Christian can tolerate the beliefs of a Sikh (who must believe in a non-existent God from the Xians perspective) yet has a problem with an atheist - both of whom from a Christian's perspective are damned and in exactly the same boat. Surely the Sikh is in fact a little worse compounding their sins by worshipping false idols as it were.

PDN

Confirms that Plato was an ass.

Of course atheism shouldn't be suppressed.

Maccattack

The real question is: Should suppression be suppressed?

Schuhart

Adyx wrote:

Atheists are better educated?

Hopefully wikipedia will be accepted as good enough for our purposes.

According to a study by Paul Bell, published in the UK Mensa Magazine in 2002, there is an inverse correlation between religiosity and intelligence. Analyzing 43 studies carried out since 1927, Bell found that all but four reported such a connection, and he concluded that "the higher one's intelligence or education level, the less one is likely to be religious or hold 'beliefs' of any kind." A letter published in Nature in 1998 reported a survey suggesting that belief in a personal God or afterlife was at an all time low among the members of the National Academy of Science, only 7.0% of which believed in a personal God as compared to more than 85% of the US general population.

Mordeth wrote:

Plato's a tit

PDN wrote:

Confirms that Plato was an ass.

I’m a little worried at what I believe are called Ad Hominem arguments. Maybe Plato’s a tit, but this is the one thing he’s right about. Has anyone any substantial point that suggests where he’s wrong?

Fallen Seraph

empirically, I think it's safe to say he's wrong. Aren't standards of living higher in scandanavian countries where secularism and atheism are prevalent?

karen3212

SchubartIn his view, the general population needs to get its morality delivered to it in the form of an unquestioned myth.


I'm pretty sure it has been shown that the General population have constantly reinterpreted the morals being handed down by many good books, and in the end have looked at experience for their morals. I think they can handle the truth, and they don't need to be educated to do it, just be able to deduce from their own experience.

Dades

Why should Platos words be even relevant today? Society is unrecognisable since his time.

Taking god out the equation does not negate man-made law. There is a law against every crime in statute, to ensure that people without morality don't go unchecked.

robindch

Religious toleration of atheists:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkLFG0CtdEo

CerebralCortex

A healthy balance is need and a respect between both points of view, but that would mean the eradication of institutions like the Catholic Church unless they change what they're are fundamentally built on/fundamental message is which has as much to do with Christianity as my bollox and more to do with power, of course in my very humble opinion.
http://www.thesecret.tv/

DublinWriter

Schuhart wrote:

Plato, in considering the ideal republic, felt that atheism posed a threat to public morality that could not be allowed to go unchecked.

Plato Schmato. He also thought the eating of beans was morally repugnant.

Scofflaw

DublinWriter wrote:

Plato Schmato. He also thought the eating of beans was morally repugnant.

Of course! One wonders, though, why this interesting fact has failed to persuade people down the millenia that Plato wasn't really much of a thinker...

karen3212 wrote:

Schuhart wrote:

In his view, the general population needs to get its morality delivered to it in the form of an unquestioned myth.

I'm pretty sure it has been shown that the General population have constantly reinterpreted the morals being handed down by many good books, and in the end have looked at experience for their morals. I think they can handle the truth, and they don't need to be educated to do it, just be able to deduce from their own experience.

Good points, backed up by:

Fallen Seraph wrote:

empirically, I think it's safe to say he's wrong. Aren't standards of living higher in scandanavian countries where secularism and atheism are prevalent?

That is the case - see here for details (graphs at bottom). However, remember that the paper shows correlation, not causation - lower living standards may lead to theism, rather than the reverse, or there may well be a two-way causation.

Plato was thinking, of course, of an entirely different type of society, with a much more limited, but much more direct, form of democracy, and lacking the structure of laws/courts/police/prisons that we now have.

I find it hard not to agree with Plato theoretically. The majority of any population probably do need to receive their 'morality' (or the code by which they are expected to act) from somewhere else. Without some form of sanction attached to morality, I would tend to agree that a significant part of the population can be expected to be less moral than is desirable.

On the other hand, I (a) don't agree that the majority of people will be entirely amoral in the absence of some form of obviously external moral constraint, and (b) don't consider what Plato says to be applicable to modern societies.

Consider - the vast bulk of people live in communities of some kind, and their lives are defined by social interaction. They are always, therefore, susceptible to the socially defined "contractual" morality of their group. Further, each group interacts with others, to a far greater degree than in Plato's day, so in turn each group is susceptible to pressure from the greater society to conform to generally acceptable norms.

This mechanism is not totally effective - witness the cultures of deceit and/or corruption that have occurred within companies (Enron, Arthur Andersen), where each individual excuses him/herself with the claim that everyone else was doing it. Similarly, I think we are all aware in an Irish context of the degree to which certain forms of corruption are both endemic, and acceptable, within Irish political life.

However, we have what Plato did not foresee - mechanisms of detection and correction that outstrip by orders of magnitude those available to his society, an accepted corpus of law that has its own gravitas, and a policing system that is startlingly ubiquitous and effective. In the final analysis, the powers of coercion available to the state are overwhelming compared to the powers of resistance available to the citizen - yet democracy keeps those powers from being exercised against the wishes of the majority of citizens.

In such a context, atheists are no longer the spreaders of social disorder that they might have been. Indeed, the boot is likely to be on the other foot - those who resist the common morality, and are willing to pay the "supreme sacrifice" of defending their deviance with their lives, are far more likely in this day and age to be theists. The cultists at Waco, Heaven's Gate, the Manson Family - all religiously motivated. Or rather, all in the thrall of charismatic individuals who redefined morality to suit themselves, and who used religion as the vehicle for that redefinition.

It is possible to see how a charismatic individual could use atheism to persuade his followers to lay down their lives - but it's not option A. Only by persuading people that their lives were brief meaningless farts of existence could you persuade your followers that they should lay them down - and in a group setting, that's pretty difficult, since by and large, most of us derive our meaning from membership of groups. The best attempts have been those, like socialism, which try to persuade the individual that his or her life has no meaning individually, but only in the context of the group - hence the socialist attempts to "liberate" the individual from any other group membership - be it church, village, social class or family.

The message that there is no reward waiting, no Heaven for the dutiful, no virgins for the suicide bomber, no glorious dead, but only a full stop - is not one I would choose to motivate followers. The best result is likely to be a stable of unstable individuals, who are as likely to kill themselves, or me, or another group member, as anyone I might point them at. Far better to use religion, with the promise of another life for the blessed, and no comeback if that's not the case. The dead do not return to say "he lied" - they lie still, and tell no tales.

What of those who do not have to lay down their lives to struggle against the commonly accepted morality? Here too, we find theists of various stripes in the clear majority. While there are atheists who will kick against what is empirically established as 'good' or 'bad', they do so individually. Offend one theist, and you've offended thousands, so that a single individual of personal force or official position can act as a spokesperson for multitudes - offend one atheist, and other atheists will nitpick his arguments to death, because no two atheists have to sing from the same score.

Bear in mind that Plato was talking about what were, by and large, state religions - so that atheism constituted a rejection of state-sanctioned morality. We cannot apply his arguments to personal religions like Christianity, where atheism may include an acceptance of a state-sanctioned morality that the theist would reject.

My conclusion, then, is that what Plato said needs to be stood on its head. The majority of citizens are already receiving their morality from an external, sanction-backed source - the law of the land and the general social contract, enforced by policing, regulation, and communication. The followers of organised religion, because it may oppose what is empirically shown to be good for the majority purely on the basis of doctrine, are more likely to be the social danger he describes. Atheists, on the other hand, have no reason to oppose what is empirically shown to be good, and when they do, they do so out of purely personal unreasons.

The real question is - should theism be suppressed?

somewhat orotundly,
Scofflaw

DublinWriter

Scofflaw wrote:

Of course! One wonders, though, why this interesting fact has failed to persuade people down the millenia that Plato wasn't really much of a thinker...

Dunno, all I can say is that I never fancied following the herd myself. Too much bleeting for my liking.

Scofflaw wrote:

The real question is - should theism be suppressed?

Suppressing something always makes it underground and popular. Christianity is a shining example.

The real question is: Theism, why?

PDN

DublinWriter wrote:

Plato Schmato. He also thought the eating of beans was morally repugnant.

It's been many years since I read Russell's A History of Western Philosophy - but I distinctly remember Pythagoras, rather than Plato, as being the guy with the bean phobia.

Fallen Seraph

Scofflaw wrote:

That is the case - see here for details (graphs at bottom). However, remember that the paper shows correlation, not causation - lower living standards may lead to theism, rather than the reverse, or there may well be a two-way causation.

But surely whether there is causation is not is irrelevant in this case? Surely the assumption that Plato requires to justify the supression is that higher levels of atheism cause immoral behaviour. There exists a society with high levels of atheism and low levels of social disease; thusly showing that the two can co-exist (regardless of causation or correlation) invalidation his assumption.

Scofflaw

DublinWriter wrote:

Dunno, all I can say is that I never fancied following the herd myself. Too much bleeting for my liking.

Well, chacun a son gout, as they say.

DublinWriter wrote:

Suppressing something always makes it underground and popular. Christianity is a shining example.

That's fundamentally a question of method. Repression certainly is very good for Christianity, so it's not the method I would choose.

DublinWriter wrote:

The real question is: Theism, why?

Ask a theist!

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Fallen Seraph wrote:

But surely whether there is causation is not is irrelevant in this case? Surely the assumption that Plato requires to justify the supression is that higher levels of atheism cause immoral behaviour. There exists a society with high levels of atheism and low levels of social disease; thusly showing that the two can co-exist (regardless of causation or correlation) invalidation his assumption.

That's true - the note is more to make the point that one shouldn't use the graphs as evidence that atheists are good for social order incautiously.

As you point out, though, it invalidates Plato's basic assumption - although, as I said, the assumption applies to an entirely different religious setup anyway.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

PDN wrote:

It's been many years since I read Russell's A History of Western Philosophy - but I distinctly remember Pythagoras, rather than Plato, as being the guy with the bean phobia.

You're right, I think - and, strangely, the square of the hypotenuse still equals the sum of the other two squares...

Hmm. A point which reminds me that I meant to ask you whether you thought Lewis' Trilemma was valid? Possibly on another thread, of course.

cordially,
Scofflaw

PDN

Scofflaw wrote:

Well, chacun a son gout, as they say.

Or, "One man's fish is another man's poisson."

Scofflaw

PDN wrote:

Or, "One man's fish is another man's poisson."

Mercifully, I'd forgotten that one. Thanks ever so much for reminding me. Anyway, the people in question are usually French, so we can ignore them.

cordially,
Scofflaw

PDN

Schuhart wrote:

Hopefully wikipedia will be accepted as good enough for our purposes.

I think there needs to be a new logical fallacy identified, namely "Argument from Wikipedia"

A friend of mine, Chris Kerr, now lives in Atlanta but originally hails from Wauseon, Ohio. One day, in a fit of boredom, he realised that Wikipedia had no entry for his home town, so he submitted the following (which remained on Wikipedia for a number of months).

Wauseon, Ohio
Wauseon is a city located in Fulton County, Ohio. As of the 2000 census, the city had a total population of 7,091. It is the county seat of Fulton County. Wauseon was named after an Indian chief, Chief Wauseon, who lived in the area before the founding of the state. The entire city has been in mourning ever since it's golden child: Christopher Kerr left the area for adventures elsewhere

Schuhart

Is it fair to say that the basis for refuting Plato is Scandanavia, on the basis that these are secular societies that are quite stable despite quite a high proportion of the population not subscribing to any faith. I take it, even if we were to argue that those societies were probably stable before people left religion behind, we’d still have to accept that atheism hasn’t caused a breakdown in order.

However, does the very opulence of those societies not provoke pause? Fine, atheism causes no problems in a successful, wealthy society where everyone feels there’s something worth protecting. But does this not underline that those people don’t really face any pressing moral choices? All that saves us is that people at the end of their tether may be naturally drawn to religion, hence neutralising themselves as a source of discontent.

Put another way, could we empty Mountjoy by converting prisoners to atheism?

Scofflaw wrote:

In such a context, atheists are no longer the spreaders of social disorder that they might have been. Indeed, the boot is likely to be on the other foot - those who resist the common morality, and are willing to pay the "supreme sacrifice" of defending their deviance with their lives, are far more likely in this day and age to be theists.

I've never seen any religious breakdown of people involved in the various Irish crime gang feuds that we see reported. But is it fair to suggest that this is a potential threat to social order, not because of any coherent alternative ideology, but simply as an effect of people realising that public morality has no basis other than what people happen to agree on. Hence, if you cannot be caught and jailed, there's simply no reason not to shoot someone for a few bucks.

Scofflaw wrote:

The majority of citizens are already receiving their morality from an external, sanction-backed source - the law of the land and the general social contract, enforced by policing, regulation, and communication.

But presumbly they are not receiving their morality from the law. It simply tries to regulate their social interactions. If people took their morality from the law there would be no lucrative drug trade. And the only way of getting people away from drugs is to programme them with moral restraint. What better way than telling them there's a God who sees everything they do and will hold them to account for it?

Schuhart

PDN wrote:

I think there needs to be a new logical fallacy identified, namely "Argument from Wikipedia"

I'd always, as in this case, simply offer it as a quick and dirty source of information and invite agreement that there's no particular need to dig deeper on the specific matter at hand.

Do you feel the wikipedia material I have linked is good enough for our purposes here? Are you contesting that atheism tends to be found among better educated people? (You'll understand I'm not suggesting that any mainstream religion would not be able to produce some wealthy Phds among its adherents or making any suggestion here that better education is what causes atheism.)

PDN

Schuhart wrote:

Do you feel the wikipedia material I have linked is good enough for our purposes here? Are you contesting that atheism tends to be found among better educated people? (You'll understand I'm not suggesting that any mainstream religion would not be able to produce some wealthy Phds among its adherents or making any suggestion here that better education is what causes atheism.)

No, I'm just being pathetic.

Schuhart

PDN wrote:

No, I'm just being pathetic.

I have been thinking about another thread arising from recent bannings, along the lines of 'what constitutes pathetic, and is it better or worse than being a knob-end'.

Scofflaw

Schuhart wrote:

Is it fair to say that the basis for refuting Plato is Scandanavia, on the basis that these are secular societies that are quite stable despite quite a high proportion of the population not subscribing to any faith. I take it, even if we were to argue that those societies were probably stable before people left religion behind, we’d still have to accept that atheism hasn’t caused a breakdown in order.

However, does the very opulence of those societies not provoke pause? Fine, atheism causes no problems in a successful, wealthy society where everyone feels there’s something worth protecting. But does this not underline that those people don’t really face any pressing moral choices? All that saves us is that people at the end of their tether may be naturally drawn to religion, hence neutralising themselves as a source of discontent.

Hmm. I think the point is that it is a result inconsistent with Plato's claim, as Fallen Seraph pointed out.

Schuhart wrote:

Put another way, could we empty Mountjoy by converting prisoners to atheism?I've never seen any religious breakdown of people involved in the various Irish crime gang feuds that we see reported. But is it fair to suggest that this is a potential threat to social order, not because of any coherent alternative ideology, but simply as an effect of people realising that public morality has no basis other than what people happen to agree on. Hence, if you cannot be caught and jailed, there's simply no reason not to shoot someone for a few bucks.

I think that's a fair point. However, in the absence of a breakdown of the religious persuasion of criminals, it certainly can't suggest that the majority are atheists.

Statistics from prisons (there's a reference on some thread or other), as far as I know, suggest that atheists are under-represented in prisons - whether this is because they are less likely to turn to crime, or because they are less likely to be caught, I can't say.

Again, though, I think "public morality has no basis other than what people happen to agree on" is incorrect. People worldwide agree on the same things far too often for your phrasing, which suggests a random collection of arbitrary rules.

Schuhart wrote:

But presumbly they are not receiving their morality from the law. It simply tries to regulate their social interactions. If people took their morality from the law there would be no lucrative drug trade. And the only way of getting people away from drugs is to programme them with moral restraint. What better way than telling them there's a God who sees everything they do and will hold them to account for it?

Well, yes. There's a lot of tension between morality and the law. A law that is considered immoral by a sufficiently large number of people is a serious problem. Drugs law is a good example - far too many people think that drugs are not immoral, and that therefore persecuting users is immoral. As far as democracy can tell us, though, the people who think this do not constitute a majority of voters.

That's an example of where the social contract is in opposition to the law of the land. The result is not one where "the only way of getting people away from drugs is to programme them with moral restraint", but to abandon a law that wastes time and effort.

Programming an offender with God-backed morality makes a difference, if, at the same time, the offender chooses to leave his/her old social circles. While there are a few who are temperamentally strong enough to maintain their new way in their old circles, the majority are not, and will rapidly trend back to the morality of their group.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Schuhart

Scofflaw wrote:

I think the point is that it is a result inconsistent with Plato's claim, as Fallen Seraph pointed out.

Certainly, it’s not providing support for Plato’s contention and refutes it to the extent that an immediate breakdown of social order doesn’t accompany a large proportion of the population leaving religion behind. But I’d suggest that two things might be said. Firstly, presumably the wholesale departure from religion is quite recent. Hence, the old moral ‘myths’ are still imprinted in people’s minds, and they can be trusted to follow them out of habit. Secondly, (as already said) the societies in question are generally successful, and hence can depend on the general population having a stake in the social order. That might (might) suggest that if religion vanishes, it is necessary to make sure that society is organised in such a way that everyone feels they have a stake.

Scofflaw wrote:

Again, though, I think "public morality has no basis other than what people happen to agree on" is incorrect. People worldwide agree on the same things far too often for your phrasing, which suggests a random collection of arbitrary rules.

Let’s assume that, even across different human societies, that there’s enough common experience to mean that pretty much everyone ends up with a mindset that makes them agree ‘that’s morality’. That means that ‘random’ and ‘arbitrary’ take on a similar meaning to when they might be used by, say, creationists in relation to evolution – taking that line well made by Dawkins (I think he’s fluent on the science stuff) that absence of a grand designer doesn’t mean random. In the same kind of spirit, public morality having no basis other than what people happen to agree on doesn’t necessarily mean that its random and arbitrary. But it does mean that it has no more force than 'what everyone else would tell me to do, and they're never going to know'.

Scofflaw wrote:

The result is not one where "the only way of getting people away from drugs is to programme them with moral restraint", but to abandon a law that wastes time and effort.

That’s a potential result, if we deem drugs to be harmless. But presumably there’s any amount of crimes that are hard to stamp out but still need to have the time and effort invested in doing that. Human trafficking, for the sake of argument, also depends on there being a lucrative market. Presumably there’s plenty of men out there willing to sleep with prostitutes without asking exactly how free she is in deciding to follow that profession. Do we just say ‘oh, conflict between social contract and law – time to change the law’?

Scofflaw wrote:

While there are a few who are temperamentally strong enough to maintain their new way in their old circles, the majority are not, and will rapidly trend back to the morality of their group.

This seems like a detailed statement. Do I take it this is based on some kind of reasonable study that you’ve seen?

Scofflaw

Schuhart wrote:

Certainly, it’s not providing support for Plato’s contention and refutes it to the extent that an immediate breakdown of social order doesn’t accompany a large proportion of the population leaving religion behind. But I’d suggest that two things might be said. Firstly, presumably the wholesale departure from religion is quite recent. Hence, the old moral ‘myths’ are still imprinted in people’s minds, and they can be trusted to follow them out of habit. Secondly, (as already said) the societies in question are generally successful, and hence can depend on the general population having a stake in the social order. That might (might) suggest that if religion vanishes, it is necessary to make sure that society is organised in such a way that everyone feels they have a stake.

I think that those societies that remain religious, and are prosperous, yet have high levels of crime, strongly suggests that this is not the case.

The US is certainly religious, certainly homicidal, and certainly prosperous. The Nordic countries (and Japan) are certainly irreligious, certainly low-crime, and certainly prosperous.

If prosperity allowed atheism as you suggest, while theism reduced crime, then prosperous religious countries should have even less crime than prosperous atheistic ones. This is not so.

Schuhart wrote:

Let’s assume that, even across different human societies, that there’s enough common experience to mean that pretty much everyone ends up with a mindset that makes them agree ‘that’s morality’. That means that ‘random’ and ‘arbitrary’ take on a similar meaning to when they might be used by, say, creationists in relation to evolution – taking that line well made by Dawkins (I think he’s fluent on the science stuff) that absence of a grand designer doesn’t mean random. In the same kind of spirit, public morality having no basis other than what people happen to agree on doesn’t necessarily mean that its random and arbitrary. But it does mean that it has no more force than 'what everyone else would tell me to do, and they're never going to know'.

Actually, most people wish to think of themselves as good people. Again, were your suggestion correct, we would find that all people always act immorally when there is no chance of getting caught. If you have ever tried to persuade someone else into an act of immorality where there is no chance of being caught, you will know that this is not the case. Not only that, but most people will not do abroad what is regarded as immoral at home, even with no chance of penalty.

Schuhart wrote:

That’s a potential result, if we deem drugs to be harmless. But presumably there’s any amount of crimes that are hard to stamp out but still need to have the time and effort invested in doing that. Human trafficking, for the sake of argument, also depends on there being a lucrative market. Presumably there’s plenty of men out there willing to sleep with prostitutes without asking exactly how free she is in deciding to follow that profession. Do we just say ‘oh, conflict between social contract and law – time to change the law’?

Ah. Not in general, because the majority of crimes are regarded as immoral by the majority. It is only in certain cases, where a sufficiently large group regards the law as 'wrong', that it becomes impossible to actually enforce it.

If, for example, most people regard tax evasion as legal, then the tax authorities are in for a rough ride. That does not suggest that the law be repealed, merely that enforcement will be difficult - it remains a fair law, because those who evade taxes benefit from the taxes of others, and are effectively stealing from them. In the case of drugs, it seems ridiculous to claim that they are 'immoral', unless one can prove that the use of drugs harms others in the absence of criminalisation. As far as I am aware, all the evidence points firmly the other way.

Schuhart wrote:

This seems like a detailed statement. Do I take it this is based on some kind of reasonable study that you’ve seen?

It's mostly a remark from observation, but I seem to recall having seen some studies, although not, afair, in respect of religious conversion - more a question of susceptibility to group norms.

I'm sure the theists could tell us - particularly those that have a pastoral role.

cordially,
Scofflaw

karen3212

I also think that Plato wasn't privy to the scientific knowledge we have today about why people become criminals.

We can point to genetic, environmental and mental problems. Plato didn't have such knowledge. Societies that want to, can step in early to help people who may be heading in the wrong direction, of course the society also has know how much it will cost and only those that can afford the upfont costs can do it.

Some socities though cling to religion as that is where their power comes from. They cannot allow the other solutions to be tried as they may then become dienfranchised. I think it is the leaders or powerful of such a society who are themselves suffering from the genetic, environ, or mental problems mentioned above.

So I think that if plato had all of our research, he wouldn't have needed to keep religion, as we now have better solutions and I suspect Norway is using them.

Schuhart

Scofflaw wrote:

If prosperity allowed atheism as you suggest, while theism reduced crime, then prosperous religious countries should have even less crime than prosperous atheistic ones. This is not so.

That sounds correct. I can't think of anywhere else to take the opposite argument. The only possible residual that might remain is almost a reversal of Plato's idea that only a few could be trusted to reason for themselves - i.e. that mostly people can reason for themselves but there might be some few who cannot be trusted.

Scofflaw wrote:

If you have ever tried to persuade someone else into an act of immorality where there is no chance of being caught, you will know that this is not the case.

I'm not confident on this point. What's on my mind partly comes from noticing when visiting relatives in a rural location the extent to which roadside dumping of household waste seems quite common. I know you can argue that people who do this probably feel morally justified in avoiding waste disposal charges, and I agree that people will go to enormous lengths to persuade themselves that what they are doing is not wrong. But it seems hard to think that someone casually dumping their rubbish on the side of a country road think they are doing right.

I suppose its possible to broaden that out to the wider Irish experience. I don't sense it to be so much a case of people thinking they are doing right, and more people seeing no point in doing right if others are doing wrong.

Scofflaw wrote:

In the case of drugs, it seems ridiculous to claim that they are 'immoral', unless one can prove that the use of drugs harms others in the absence of criminalisation. As far as I am aware, all the evidence points firmly the other way.

You'll understand, the specific point at issue isn't whether drugs are wrong or not - its just an illustrative example of crime that's currently in the news. It can indeed be replaced with tax evasion or human trafficking or extortion if preferred. The point is more where we see some public good that does require individual honesty where there is no fear of penalty.

I'd say I agree with the general approach that, mostly and in most things, people will not individually do what they deem to be wrong. Also, theism is no block on people persuading themselves that the wrong they want to do (say, dumping that old sofa in a ditch) is perfectly right.

karen3212 wrote:

So I think that if plato had all of our research, he wouldn't have needed to keep religion, as we now have better solutions and I suspect Norway is using them.

Fair points. Have you anything specific in mind regarding the Norwegian experience?

karen3212

Originally Posted by karen3212
So I think that if plato had all of our research, he wouldn't have needed to keep religion, as we now have better solutions and I suspect Norway is using them.

Schubart
Have you anything specific in mind regarding the Norwegian experience?

I'm afraid I'm not all that well read, but I have a cousin who was born with Aspergers Syndrome in Norway. His parents have been given a mountain of knowledge on the subject, he has had health visitors come and talk to his parents since he was three. At the age of 15 it looks like he is on the road to becoming a specialist in whatever he chooses to do, and a very very valuable member of society. Contast that to what might have happened in an African tribe who might have taught he was born with the devil in him. I suspect he would not have lived to the age of 15.

PDN

karen3212 wrote:

Originally Posted by karen3212
So I think that if plato had all of our research, he wouldn't have needed to keep religion, as we now have better solutions and I suspect Norway is using them.

Schubart
Have you anything specific in mind regarding the Norwegian experience?

I'm afraid I'm not all that well read, but I have a cousin who was born with Aspergers Syndrome in Norway. His parents have been given a mountain of knowledge on the subject, he has had health visitors come and talk to his parents since he was three. At the age of 15 it looks like he is on the road to becoming a specialist in whatever he chooses to do, and a very very valuable member of society. Contast that to what might have happened in an African tribe who might have taught he was born with the devil in him. I suspect he would not have lived to the age of 15.

So you think the difference between his treatment in Norway rather than Africa is due to Norway having a higher percentage of atheists?

Scofflaw

PDN wrote:

So you think the difference between his treatment in Norway rather than Africa is due to Norway having a higher percentage of atheists?

I'm sure any such assertion would be difficult, if not impossible, to prove. All the evidence can only show correlation, not causation. Norway has a high proportion of organic atheism, and it is a well-run and prosperous society - but whether one or other leads to the other, or both correlate with being Norwegian, we can't say.

As said, though, the high prevalence of atheists in well-run societies suggests that Plato's thesis is false.

cordially,
Scofflaw

karen3212

PDN wrote:

So you think the difference between his treatment in Norway rather than Africa is due to Norway having a higher percentage of atheists?

I am saying that it took people that continued to ask why, why, why to find out why he was the way he was,
rather than people who accepted that he was different and religion could be used to suppress him and keep him from the wrong road. If his treatment had consisted of prayers and fear of God do you think his talents would soon be put to good use.

PDN

karen3212 wrote:

I am saying that it took people that continued to ask why, why, why to find out why he was the way he was,
rather than people who accepted that he was different and religion could be used to suppress him and keep him from the wrong road. If his treatment had consisted of prayers and fear of God do you think his talents would soon be put to good use.

So you think that if someone believes in God that means that they substitute prayers for medical treatment?

Of course he received better treatment in Norway than he would have in an isolated village in Africa. Just as he would receive better treatment if he had been born in Tennessee (where there is a high concentration of theists) than if he had been born in an impoverished village of atheists in China.

To argue that atheism is the reason for Norway giving better medical care than an African country is about as sensible as ascribing it to the Norwegians' fair hair, or even their white skin.

karen3212

PDN wrote:

So you think that if someone believes in God that means that they substitute prayers for medical treatment?

Of course he received better treatment in Norway than he would have in an isolated village in Africa. Just as he would receive better treatment if he had been born in Tennessee (where there is a high concentration of theists) than if he had been born in an impoverished village of atheists in China.

To argue that atheism is the reason for Norway giving better medical care than an African country is about as sensible as ascribing it to the Norwegians' fair hair, or even their white skin.

I'm sorry but I feel you have completely misinterpreted what I meant.
I am trying to answer the question: do we need religion to keep certain people in society from doing harm, and therefore a breakdown of society.
I think if we look at who in society ends up causing harm, then we begin to find out why they do it. With all of modern research we are better able to work on solutions for those people, so I am saying that using religion and fear of God to suppress such people is no longer necessary. We can help them, if spotted early, to work on fulfilling their potential, great that it can be. Please I am not comparing a tribe in Africa to Norway, just trying to work out whether religion is good enough anymore. Sorry if my posts were confusing

Scofflaw

PDN wrote:

So you think that if someone believes in God that means that they substitute prayers for medical treatment?

Of course he received better treatment in Norway than he would have in an isolated village in Africa. Just as he would receive better treatment if he had been born in Tennessee (where there is a high concentration of theists) than if he had been born in an impoverished village of atheists in China.

To argue that atheism is the reason for Norway giving better medical care than an African country is about as sensible as ascribing it to the Norwegians' fair hair, or even their white skin.

While that is applicable in the specific instance, I think there is a more general thesis behind it that merits consideration: that untheistic pursuit of empirically verifiable truths has led to better outcomes than would have been possible if the pursuit of such truths was conducted only within Biblical limits.

I don't wish to make the claim that Christianity and science are necessarily opposed. It is clear that the origins of science in the West are intimately bound up with the Christian idea of a rational Creator. However, had scientific enquiry been constrained by the need to accept, for example, a 'literal' interpretation of Genesis, then I doubt we would have made as much progress in science as we have done.

It is demonstrable that religion influences or constrains research - consider stem cell research, for example. While it might be argued that this is ethical constraint of scientific research, the ethics in question are religious. Religious doctrines cannot improve the pursuit of empirical knowledge as such, because they are limits, not tools.

So, as a general statement, secular scientific enquiry is probably more productive than religiously constrained scientific enquiry. Insofar as atheists are unlikely to be personally constrained by religious bounds, they are probably personally better suited to the pursuit of secular science. Insofar as a country is populated more by atheists, it will be the more willing to accept the results of empirical research, rather than only accepting those findings which accord with doctrine.

Overall, then, a contributory factor in better treatment in Norway is likely to be Norway's greater willingness to accept empirical truths, without subjecting them to religious scrutiny.

cordially,
Scofflaw

karen3212

Yes, I was thinking more of the questioning that non-accepting people do.

Also doesn't the idea of free will at least in the Bible stifel questioning of why people behave in certain ways. I mean if people are born with certain conditions that lead to bad choices, then they are not born with as much free will as others. I mean most religious people I know tell me that people make choices, their own choices, they are completely accountable.

I mean if you don't ask why someone does something, and simply accept that they are bad/evil and freely choosing the wrong way, then nobody would have realised that my cousin has communication problems. Nobody would have informed his parents or his peers, that he was not bad, he was just different and didn't really see the world as others might.

And the people of the society would not have been willing to sacrifice some of their money to help "bad" kids fulfill their potential.

PDN

Scofflaw wrote:

While that is applicable in the specific instance, I think there is a more general thesis behind it that merits consideration: that untheistic pursuit of empirically verifiable truths has led to better outcomes than would have been possible if the pursuit of such truths was conducted only within Biblical limits.

I don't wish to make the claim that Christianity and science are necessarily opposed. It is clear that the origins of science in the West are intimately bound up with the Christian idea of a rational Creator. However, had scientific enquiry been constrained by the need to accept, for example, a 'literal' interpretation of Genesis, then I doubt we would have made as much progress in science as we have done.

It is demonstrable that religion influences or constrains research - consider stem cell research, for example. While it might be argued that this is ethical constraint of scientific research, the ethics in question are religious. Religious doctrines cannot improve the pursuit of empirical knowledge as such, because they are limits, not tools.

So, as a general statement, secular scientific enquiry is probably more productive than religiously constrained scientific enquiry. Insofar as atheists are unlikely to be personally constrained by religious bounds, they are probably personally better suited to the pursuit of secular science. Insofar as a country is populated more by atheists, it will be the more willing to accept the results of empirical research, rather than only accepting those findings which accord with doctrine.

Overall, then, a contributory factor in better treatment in Norway is likely to be Norway's greater willingness to accept empirical truths, without subjecting them to religious scrutiny.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Undoubtedly there is truth in what you say. Remove theistic ethical restraints and you can conduct forms of scientific research that you would otherwise be unable to conduct. The classic example of this would be Dr Joseph Mengele, who used gypsy children and Jews for human experimentation purposes in Auschwitz. However, I suspect this might stengthen rather than weaken Plato's argument.

Insofar as a country is populated more by atheists, it will be the more willing to accept the results of empirical research, rather than only accepting those findings which accord with doctrine.

Of course this would only apply when a country is populated and controlled by one particular form of theism (or in your example of those who take Genesis literally, one subset within one form of theism). Indeed, you must admit it is theoretically possible that atheists doctrinal presuppositions blind them to future scientific discoveries which hinge on belief in God. Therefore the population mix that is most likely to produce scientific innovation would be a mix of various kinds of theists with a sprinkling of atheists.

Godwinly,
PDN

Fallen Seraph

PDN wrote:

Undoubtedly there is truth in what you say. Remove theistic ethical restraints and you can conduct forms of scientific research that you would otherwise be unable to conduct. The classic example of this would be Dr Joseph Mengele, who used gypsy children and Jews for human experimentation purposes in Auschwitz. However, I suspect this might stengthen rather than weaken Plato's argument.

This, I think, is certainly a fallacy. You've hopped from removing theistic ethical restraints to removing ALL ethical restraints. Which are two very different things. Atheists still have morals.

PDN

Fallen Seraph wrote:

This, I think, is certainly a fallacy. You've hopped from removing theistic ethical restraints to removing ALL ethical restraints. Which are two very different things. Atheists still have morals.

Not at all, Mengele did not operate under no ethical restraints, simply under a different series of ethics. For example, it would have been considered unethical for him to have experimented on an Aryan child.

Also, the Nazis still had morals - in fact in many areas they were more moralistic than most of their opponents.

Of course the problem was that they rejected the Genesis creation account which, whether you take it literally or symbolically, affirms that all mankind is created by God and in the image of God.

Fallen Seraph

PDN wrote:

Not at all, Mengele did not operate under no ethical restraints, simply under a different series of ethics. For example, it would have been considered unethical for him to have experimented on an Aryan child.

Also, the Nazis still had morals - in fact in many areas they were more moralistic than most of their opponents.

Fair enough, but I still think it's going rather far to argue that many atheists would condone such experimenting; I mean science does already have some pretty tough ethical restraints as it is.

Also it's a bit much to argue that one needs to believe in the bible to be appalled by the behaviour of the nazis...

I also think you'll find that there has been plenty of theologial debate in the past over whether or not the bible does, in fact, say everyone is equal.

Dades

Thought this was fitting:

The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance - it is the illusion of knowledge.
Daniel Boorstin

PDN

Fallen Seraph wrote:

Fair enough, but I still think it's going rather far to argue that many atheists would condone such experimenting; I mean science does already have some pretty tough ethical restraints as it is.

I did not argue that many atheists would condone such experimenting. Most atheists still retain a large amount of moralism that is inherited from theism. I was simply agreeing with Scofflaw that if you remove theistic ethical restraints from science then you are free to conduct research from which you would otherwise be prevented.

Also it's a bit much to argue that one needs to believe in the bible to be appalled by the behaviour of the nazis...

Ah, I quite agree with you there. Therefore I would advise you to actually find someone who has argued that one needs to believe in the bible to be appalled by the behaviour of the nazis (which, of course, I never argued or implied) and then you may put that excellent point to them.

I also think you'll find that there has been plenty of theologial debate in the past over whether or not the bible does, in fact, say everyone is equal.

Again, a very good point - or at least it would be if I had mentioned anything about everyone being equal (which I didn't).

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote:

Most atheists still retain a large amount of moralism that is inherited from theism.

That's a ridiculous statement. I for one, certainly didn't inherit the morals of the crusades, the inquisition, the morals of the OT. My morals certainly didn't derive from the maxim that people can suffer external torment after death.

PDN wrote:

The classic example of this would be Dr Joseph Mengele, who used gypsy children and Jews for human experimentation purposes in Auschwitz.

What about the classic example of the hero of the reformation, Martin Luther and his nasty racist piece of work:

"On the Jews and their Lies".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Jews_and_Their_Lies

Luther hated Jews and he preached in that book to hate and despise them.

Scofflaw

PDN wrote:

Undoubtedly there is truth in what you say. Remove theistic ethical restraints and you can conduct forms of scientific research that you would otherwise be unable to conduct. The classic example of this would be Dr Joseph Mengele, who used gypsy children and Jews for human experimentation purposes in Auschwitz. However, I suspect this might stengthen rather than weaken Plato's argument.

It might, if Menegele hadn't been a Roman Catholic.

Of course, your argument is actually a straw man, as well as begging a question.

First, the straw man. I haven't argued for the removal of all ethical restraints from the ways in which one conducts research - I have argued for the removal of arbitrary religious restraints on research.

Second, the obvious question you're begging. Can you prove that it was theistic ethical constraints that Menegele was lacking?

Third, the less obvious question you're begging. That you and I disagree about the arbitrariness of religiously motivated ethical restraints is pretty much a given, and is a separate argument, so you'll excuse me, I hope, if I don't simply accept your assumptions that the only available ethics are religious ethics, or that they are non-arbitrary.

Mengele's research, contrary to popular belief, was not scientifically worthwhile in any case. It was rather more the self-indulgences of a sadist than anything else. It is also, of course, rather illustrative of the dangers of the dominance of arbitrary ideologies.

So, rather than your rather unique, and indeed Godwinly, example, consider instead the extent to which religious custom impeded the development of medical science.

PDN wrote:

Of course this would only apply when a country is populated and controlled by one particular form of theism (or in your example of those who take Genesis literally, one subset within one form of theism).

So, like the US then? No - it is quite sufficient for the country's elections to be dominated by a vocal minority.

PDN wrote:

Indeed, you must admit it is theoretically possible that atheists doctrinal presuppositions blind them to future scientific discoveries which hinge on belief in God.

The most obvious answer to that is that since science by definition excludes supernatural explanations, it is difficult to see what form such discoveries could take.

However, I accept your point. When the supernatural becomes scientifically measurable/detectable, of course, it moves into the realm of the natural, rather than being an escape hatch for the unprovable. There may, therefore, be such discoveries as you assert, and indeed if we are doctrinaire in our atheism we would of course miss them.

PDN wrote:

Therefore the population mix that is most likely to produce scientific innovation would be a mix of various kinds of theists with a sprinkling of atheists.

Well, all we need ensure is that the population is not dominated by any arbitrary set of religious constraints. A secular society is most suitable for this, whether largely populated by atheists or not.

PDN wrote:

Godwinly,PDN

Quite so.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Fallen Seraph

PDN wrote:

I did not argue that many atheists would condone such experimenting. Most atheists still retain a large amount of moralism that is inherited from theism. I was simply agreeing with Scofflaw that if you remove theistic ethical restraints from science then you are free to conduct research from which you would otherwise be prevented.


Ah, I quite agree with you there. Therefore I would advise you to actually find someone who has argued that one needs to believe in the bible to be appalled by the behaviour of the nazis (which, of course, I never argued or implied) and then you may put that excellent point to them.


Again, a very good point - or at least it would be if I had mentioned anything about everyone being equal (which I didn't).

Apologies if I read too far into your statement; but I thought the assertion that ALL mankind was created in the image of god was a pretty clear impication of equality.

PDN wrote:

Of course the problem was that they rejected the Genesis creation account which, whether you take it literally or symbolically, affirms that all mankind is created by God and in the image of God.

And suggesting that the problem was the rejection of genesis is, as I understood it, implying that one needs to believe the bible to find fault with the nazis behaviour. I can think of a myriad of other things that might have been the problem but you have explicitly stated that lack of genesis was the cause.

Also, as Time pointed out, it's quite debatable that people inherited morals from theism; I'd argue that they were, for the most part, inherited from our evolution and are an ingrained part of our pysche; independant of culture.

Zombrex

PDN wrote:

whether you take it literally or symbolically, affirms that all mankind is created by God and in the image of God.

And...?

That didn't stop people in the Bible killing a lot of other people, and it certainly doesn't stop people who read the Bible killing a lot of other people.

Once again you are getting your morals the wrong way around.

If someone already believes that killing is morally wrong they can find a justification in the Bible to support this (God created all humans so like him so all humans should be treated equally).

But if someone believes that killing isn't morally wrong they can equally find a justification in the Bible to support this (God sent his chosen people out to destroy corrupt and evil peoples to make the land pure again. In fact more than once)

To a believer the Bible will always appear to support the morals they already have. Its one of the reasons its so appealing to some people

Its like one of those painting where the eyes seem to follow a person around the room so that no matter where they are standing it looks like the painting is looking at them.

Scofflaw

Fallen Seraph wrote:

Apologies if I read too far into your statement; but I thought the assertion that ALL mankind was created in the image of god was a pretty clear impication of equality.

When Adam delved, and Eve span, who then was the gentleman?

Fallen Seraph wrote:

And suggesting that the problem was the rejection of genesis is, as I understood it, implying that one needs to believe the bible to find fault with the nazis behaviour. I can think of a myriad of other things that might have been the problem but you have explicitly stated that lack of genesis was the cause.

Also, as Time pointed out, it's quite debatable that people inherited morals from theism; I'd argue that they were, for the most part, inherited from our evolution and are an ingrained part of our pysche; independant of culture.

Yes, I think PDN is rather assuming that it is lack of Christian morals (of his particular variety, although I am sure he would argue that they are universal) that give rise to difficulties - something I look forward to him actually trying to prove, if he will. He seems to be ignoring the Japanese, for some reason.

Specifically, PDN is arguing that "man made in the image of God" would have prevented Mengele from experimenting - a reasonable point superficially, but one that rather neglects the question of the definition of 'man'. If the Nazis believed, say, that Jews and Gypsies were actually sub-human, they they wouldn't see them as being made in the image of God, but perhaps rather more in mockery of humanity. Curiously enough...

Of course, the thing with the "man in the image of God" argument is that it is exactly the one that prevented disssection for medical research in Europe (think Burke and Hare). It's also an argument that you can take to some wonderfully bizarre places - making tattoos and piercings an offense, for example, or arguing that it only applies to men rather than women, or that you shouldn't have an amputation even if you have gangrene of a limb...

cordially,
Scofflaw