A Case For Nothing

I think the first two points made by Karen Armstrong are most reasonable and if trusted would provide the compassion (#4)welcomed by all. To deny God does not change His existence any more than denying gravity allows you to defy it - yet that law, whether acknowledged or not helps us to form our daily lives.

The personal subjectivity (point # 5) is why so many are uncertain in their positions and often the motive in fighting to defend their view, even if they assume a position independent of God, which leaves them feeling alone. That is, they desire to be the god themselves and feel whole, or else be god over themselves and subject Him to their own standard (or else who's?) Will you actually do the right thing when no one is looking? really?

Jesus Christ demonstrated His love, intervening on our behalf and it is indisputable, historically and otherwise. I would think that we would all appreciate intervention when needed, though some fail to simply say "thank you God". "200 Million did not come to my rescue, but You have never failed me." "And though my patience has been tested, You do exist."

Athiests may not hasten to talk to me, when promted, but they exist too.

on the front lines of religion as criminal activity hear the fanatic believers intimidate and threaten all at abortion clinics, calling a woman a murderer or her medical providers evil is no different than the KKK intimidating blacks with their burning crosses and branding whites as allegedly superiour to all other "races." There is only one human race and one freedom to choose. All else is slavery if a willing healthy mom is denied her reproductive health choices.

TAChrist wrote:
'If not "logic", but instead "common sense" (or either), from whence cometh the standard? And if someone is able to look at himself "in the mirror" and feel good about his decision-making process, against whom is he comparing himself? If he/she knows he/she is an "honest ethical human being" by doing the "ethical thing", against what thing or standard do they compare in order to know they've done the "ethical thing"?'

Are you sure your premise, that to judge anything, we must have a perfect standard against which to compare it, is true? Plato thought that there were perfect "forms" that we judged particular examples against. For example, when we see a drawing of a triangle, unique and imperfect as it might be, we know it is a triangle by comparing it against the essential Triangle "form" that we hold in our mind. Plato postulated a world of forms that enabled us to know and judge all things, including the "Good" and the "Moral." Look up "Theory of Forms" in Wikipedia.

Does this ancient philosophy ring true to you? Do you think that you wouldn't be able to recognize a triangle if there weren't a perfect triangle form "out there" somewhere to compare it to? The major problem, anticipated by Plato himself, is that this world of forms is unknowable and unprovable. In reality, we judge triangles by their definition (a three-sided polygon), which, if you think about it, is an arbitrary human concept. My point is that an ancient, non-Christian version of your premise was postulated and dealt with and ultimately dismissed by serious thinkers long, long ago.

A more mature, modern worldview recognizes that "relativism" is not path to a big, scary free-for-all of competing do-whatever-feels-good moralities. It's the recognition that when our evolved empatheic instincts intersect with culture and society, powerful moral impulses are created.

As an atheist, I have no argument to people who believe in a God; I have no argument to people who think that there can be no ethics without a God. What bothers me is that beliefs allow a person to not take personal responsibility for doing something about what is wrong with the world, "we can not know..." etc.

American Atheists began under the corporate title of "Other Americans United for Separation of State From Church."
5 plus decades ago, Americans United was not all that friendly a place for Atheists fighting ritual prayer or reverential bible readings in Baltimore Schools before the US Sup Ct.
I was 11 years old in 1963 when American Atheists were given protection by the US Sup Ct in all public schools from forcing children to mouth the words of prayer or alleged holy scriptures.
None the less, as a Boy Scout, I discovered just how dishonestly did Congress print "god" into existence by legislating two words: "under god" be scripted for all school children & Scouts.
Whatever this word "god" means to believers, Herb Silverman makes the best point, how do people act if they feel no one is watching like a god?
My point is that government is watching and forcing taxpayers to pay for services all untaxed church businesses enjoy while some church business recieve direct tax monies our of our pocket.
Our nation is approaching bankruptcy while the richest of people and wealthiest of religious businesses are draining, not contributing to our national assets.
If only Congress could replace "god" with "ethics" on our money, coins and into the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
Perhaps then taxes could be applied equally according to ability to pay?
God knows "he" is not a taxpayer, good or bad in the minds of believers.
I think Sarah Silverman, not likely a relative of the Professor of Mathmatics, has made a great comic call for economic justice: "SELL THE VATICAN. Feed all the poor people with the money. The pope will get killer pussy if he does sell the Vatican."
If the Pope is gay, I'll be his "Monica Lewinsky" and reward him personally for selling the Vatican, providing condoms for all the world and feeding the poor from Vatican deed proceeds.

TAChrist,

"If not "logic", but instead "common sense" (or either), from whence cometh the standard?"

General Huamn ethics that have been determiend through years of observation and study. Ethics that supercede any religion (althgough some have incorporated some of them into their theological ideology/philosophy) and have shown up time and again in various cultures and societies.

"And if someone is able to look at himself "in the mirror" and feel good about his decision-making process, against whom is he comparing himself?"

His/her own conscience and general human ethics.

"If he/she knows he/she is an "honest ethical human being" by doing the "ethical thing", against what thing or standard do they compare in order to know they've done the "ethical thing"?"

General human ethics.

Even Judeo Christian ethics came from man. The simply reality is that Moses did not get the ethical aspects of Torah from some fictional deity (God) but most likely from the time he spent in the desert running into the various caravans that that area were replete with. Most caravans had itinerant philosophers and scholars tagging along who would have learned about the various ethics of the various cultures they came from. Moses, having grown up in the Pharaoah's court (one fot he epicenters fo learning in that day) would have been a very educated man and very learned in philosophy (as well as military and engineering fields) and therefore would have been able to cull the useful parts of the various ethical methodologies that existed in various cultures and fashioned a more cohesive and mostly humane (although still quite paternalistic) ethical construct. But realizing that he was trying to free his people from what was also one of the most superstitious and stulifyingly reigious cultures there was he realized that he had to couch his ethical construct in theological clothing and make it all "God given" versus common human sesne. I personally like to think that he hoped that future generations would figure out what was common sense ethics and what was unneeded theological junk, keep the ethics and toss the religious stuff. Unfortunately superstition and supernatural junk is easier to live under for many people. If it what they need to follow the ethcial stuff and it provides them comfort and joy without harming others than I have no problem with them following their religions as long as they keep the religous garbage out of US law and don't try to force it on everyone.

Believe what you want if it helps you personally, but never presume that the religous stuff is needed by everyone or that without belief in a deity that a person is any less ethical than one who does believe.

CompChiro -
If not "logic", but instead "common sense" (or either), from whence cometh the standard? And if someone is able to look at himself "in the mirror" and feel good about his decision-making process, against whom is he comparing himself? If he/she knows he/she is an "honest ethical human being" by doing the "ethical thing", against what thing or standard do they compare in order to know they've done the "ethical thing"?

compchiro wrote:

"I never said logic. I said common sense and ethics which do not require a deity to possess or learn."

Pardon me from invoking logic. That is the usual appeal of atheists, claiming that faith in anything absent empirical proof is a sign of higher logic skills. Instead you invoke "common sense". Absent from logic, I suppose that means intuition. Apparently you believe all those men from Plato through Mills needn't have wasted their time wrestling with contemplation of the details of moral philosophy. Ethics can be felt out rather than reasoned.

While you don't want to invoke logic, you have the twin of atheists down to a tee. That is invoking self as the final arbiter of right and wrong. Alas, it doesn't take much of a conflict to make those who are full of self esteem and self actualization to convince themselves of the moral rightness of physically attacking the other. In a world with powerful weapons, feeling our way to ethical behavior is a road to self destruction.

Reason and faith are not enemies if you find the correct faith. In fact, Herb Silverman's title to his essay is amusing because the "Case for Nothing" is logical and easy. Nevertheless we exist. Perhaps he can supply the answer why that might be since nonexistence is the case supplied by Occam.

An interesting twist, how do you prove so someone that believes in magical books that magical books don't dome from magical people.

hariaum

And just because you might do so without fear of some bull devine retribution does not mean that most people are as weak and unethical as you are.

Every atheist that I know does the ethical thinga becuase it is actually easier and more fulfilling to do so. Because it enables them to look at themselves in the mirror in the morning and know that they are honest ethical human beings. For truly ethical people THAT is a very strong incentive. Simply to do the ethical thing because it is the ethical thing.

edbyronadams,

"compchiro, okay, using logic tell me why a person should not cheat on their espoused ethics when nobody is looking."

I never said logic. I said common sense and ethics which do not require a deity to possess or learn.

Your assertion that without a deity that one cannot learn or posses common sense and general human ethics is garbage.

I have recently read an essay by Rev. Harry T. Cook from his blog entitled "O God," in which he also makes much the same case as Dr. Silverman, in discussing Karen Armstrong's emotional and wishful thinking in making a case for God.

As Cook suggests, and where I agree, is that religious institutions should be training their leaders in the study of "relgions' histories and literature in the same way academe prepares future professors, say of Victorian literature or political science or Asian history."

If we stop making cases for God perhaps, as Rev. Cook suggests, we can "use the enormous human wisdom of religious texts, make a case for humanity and finding a path to its survival in an age of nuclear stockpiles, melting glaciers, unhinged religious zeal and abject povery."

compchiro, okay, using logic tell me why a person should not cheat on their espoused ethics when nobody is looking.

Edbyronadams,

"Exactly, and as our society proceeds with a purely legalistic view of what is right and wrong, the only wrong being those things defined in statute and the common law as wrong, we become more uncaring and throw a burden on the legal machinery of our society that it was never meant to bear when people acted our of a belief that there is a transcendent price to pay for selfishness and injuring others."

Horsehockey. The notion that we are going to a purely legalistic view of what is right or wrong or that said view is part of Atheism is a a liar or a fool (perhaps both.)

Common human ethics are learned by observation and study of the past. Although the men and women who created the various religions around the world may have incorpoarted parts of general human ethics into some their beliefs, the fact remains that said beliefs are not needed for general human ethics to function. The notion that one needs a transendent price to pay in order to not be selfish or injure others is pure garbage.

"The conservative politician J.C. Watts once said, "Character is doing the right thing when nobody is looking." By that definition, only functional atheists are capable of showing character."

best part.

Thanks to mr. Watts wise comment and the actions of his comrades, we now have cameras everywhere so even atheists can not demonstrate character.

"If those 50 million Americans without any god belief were to join forces with those who have no belief in any judging gods, our numbers would likely be close to 200 million. An umbrella term I use for this constituency is functional atheist--someone who acts as if there is no god."

Exactly, and as our society proceeds with a purely legalistic view of what is right and wrong, the only wrong being those things defined in statute and the common law as wrong, we become more uncaring and throw a burden on the legal machinery of our society that it was never meant to bear when people acted our of a belief that there is a transcendent price to pay for selfishness and injuring others.

We are all poorer for it.

On the question does god exist, in the real world, is it not wise to ask, where is the EVIDENCE? Seems to me the religionists, true believers, and minds of faith must take the “leap of faith” (from reality) to make their case for god(s).
On the part religions play in world violence, I find religions, all religions, some more than others; take the low road in human morality. Occasionally we see anecdotal indications. Arguably, George W Bush’s administration was the closest to a Christian administration (one hundred and fifty appointees from Regent University alone) this nation has ever known. It has also been recognized as probably the most corrupt. It is said that power corrupts. I suggest that religions, all religions also corrupt.

A religious friend once said to me, "We could debate the existence of God, and you'd win, but I'd still believe." In that moment I realized that logical arguments mean nothing to most believers. They believe because they want to, not because there is evidence. As a skeptic, I would be LESS likely to believe something whose main argument was the comfort the belief gave me. It would feel too much like allowing myself to be seduced or fooled. But I suspect most believers are like my friend: in the end, they will believe what gives them comfort and purpose. Evidence for or against intelligent design, scripture's authority, or any other measure is just beside the point for someone who needs to feel there is a deity in charge.

In my opinion, the most important political and philosophical issue of the day is how we non-believers can communicate and cooperate effectively with the rest of Herb's "functional atheists." That is more significant than whether the object of their belief is nothing or something.

As usual, I agree with the comments made by Professor Silverman in this essay. As Richard Dawkins said (and I paraphrase) that the existence of an intervening god belittles the wonder and beauty of the natural world. Speaking of Dawkins, I'm excited about hearing him speak this coming Tuesday in Columbia, SC.