Worldview

Those worldviews are very similar to the change in political theory. Thomas Hobbes, an important political philosopher, believed that man was naturally chaotic. He called it the "state of nature". He proposed that mankind needed a powerful monarch to keep them in line and direct their energies to productive pursuits.

Then you have John Locke, who proposed that man was naturally good, and that tyranny and monarchs were responsible for destroying personal freedom and liberty.

As is usually the case, the truth is probably somewhere in the middle. I think it is obvious that mankind needs law and order to fend off anarchy and chaos. The issue is whether religious law and order is more effective than secular law. As an American, I believe secular law to be more acceptable than religious law, as long as my right to worship as I see fit is maintained. I believe both worldviews can live and function together as long one or the other isn't intending to limit the rights of the other.

format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker

Out of shadows from the past century... in 1926, Minnesota Gov. Theodore Christianson established a state crime commission. At the end of its research, the commission concluded that criminal tendencies were not the result of poverty, education or environment. Instead, it made the following observation:

I see his point, although I wouldn't call a newborn's selfish tendencies potentially criminal - to me, criminal behaviour denotes immorality (behaviour contrary to accepted morals), or immorality that has transformed into amorality (absence of morals).

My definitions of immorality and amorality may be a little out of whack, so I recommend a dictionary definition, but what I'm saying is that babies are amoral - they simply don't know any better yet, and are thus not culpable for their actions. I would hold culpable a man who:

a) Knows what he's doing is wrong and does it anyway

or

b) Behaves in a way he himself does not regard as wrong because he himself lacks a sense of right and wrong

Amoral kiddies get off the hook because they haven't yet had their lessons about right and wrong. But an amoral adult? He's just not been paying attention, and the whole principle of 'ignorance of the law is no excuse' comes into play.

format_quote Originally Posted by Trumble

There is certainly some truth in it! Although you are certainly exaggerating as you acknowledge.

It's very interesting that according to those positions it is the theists who believe man is 'inherently evil or dangerous' while the atheists think him 'inherently' good!

That may have more to do with my writing it at 1 in the morning. Still, there is something along those lines...

Stereotypical Pro-Religious Person - The world will descend into chaos without any boundaries because though man has the capacity for good, good is a quality which must be learned. Without it, he will go astray and destroy.

Stereotypical Anti-Religious Person - Boundaries drive men mad. Boundaries are unjust. Man will act justly without boundaries or control. Controlling human behaviour is inherently wrong.

There's obviously something wrong somewhere, and I think that is simply because the first position is intellectually incoherent. God, as theists perceive him, simply cannot be reconciled to that view of humanity. Most perceive humanity as inherently good, I think, whatever their religious views, or lack of them

I personally think it's missing the point to group humanity into Good and Evil. Just based on what I see and what I know in my gut, I think something along the lines of 'Most people act in their own self-interest, but this does not preclude altruism or good faith' is more accurate.

Applying the terms Good and Evil to human behaviour is very vague in my opinion. They only tend to apply to extreme examples anyway. I prefer to think of it like this - Allah/God/Yaweh is the Ultimate Good, to which we must strive, but cannot attain; and Satan/the Devil/er... Loki is the Ultimate Evil, whose temptations we must avoid, and to which we must not sink.

We can never actually become the Ultimate Good, nor can we (I hope) become the Ultimate Evil, but it's a way of orienting ourselves.

Plus, though it's easy to call people Good, it tends to become very difficult to call certain people Evil, once we know more about them as human beings, their family, their aspirations etc. It's easy to call their actions Evil though.

Personally, of course, I would argue that neither offer solutions as they both totally miss the real problem. But that's a topic for another thread.

What would you say is the real problem?

format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi

Those worldviews are very similar to the change in political theory. Thomas Hobbes, an important political philosopher, believed that man was naturally chaotic. He called it the "state of nature". He proposed that mankind needed a powerful monarch to keep them in line and direct their energies to productive pursuits.

Then you have John Locke, who proposed that man was naturally good, and that tyranny and monarchs were responsible for destroying personal freedom and liberty.

As is usually the case, the truth is probably somewhere in the middle. I think it is obvious that mankind needs law and order to fend off anarchy and chaos. The issue is whether religious law and order is more effective than secular law. As an American, I believe secular law to be more acceptable than religious law, as long as my right to worship as I see fit is maintained. I believe both worldviews can live and function together as long one or the other isn't intending to limit the rights of the other.

I tend to agree. To me, it's not monarchs and tyranny per se, it's whether or not the rules are (perceived to be) fair.

And I really need to read Hobbes and Locke.

My view is that we're born neutral (for the most part) also that we are demanding (inherintly, since we're unable to survive by ourselves at that age) and insecure (this goes hand in hand with previous point really but it's actually the real backbone of our psychological make up). On the plus side, we are also quite expressive at that age: our smiles are real smiles - not fake ones (which we master a few years later once we find out how to lie ).
But we also have the wondeful ability to mimic anything and anyone - initially we can only mimic a few things but as we get older we get more and more practice.

In this respect, I think that we're neither inherintly good or bad but we do have the capability (both mentally and physically) to go either way.

format_quote Originally Posted by Muezzin

What would you say is the real problem?

Believing that anything has a continuing existence such that labels such as 'good', 'evil' and 'human nature' can appropriately be attached to it. It is that delusion that is ultimately responsible for all the suffering all religion atempts to relieve.

And I really need to read Hobbes and Locke.

Add Rousseau to the list as well; he has some very interesting observations on the subject.

format_quote Originally Posted by KAding

I know it is a stereotype, but even then I think this is inaccurate. Keep in mind that only a minority of atheists are libertarians, many also have a Marxist background, especially historically.

I think it would be more accurate to say the "Stereotypical Anti-Religious Person" is not against rules and boundaries as such, but that he simply does not accept religions as a rational source for morality. In other words, he thinks such supposed "divine revelations" are an asinine way of setting these rules and boundaries.

I would tend to agree with that. Many of the Marxist inspired works I've read usually see Christianity as a path to weakness. Primarily due to the emphasis on the poor, weak, powerless, etc. Personally, outside of the Marxist philosophy, I see a sort of longing for the more Feudal days of Europe in these works. It almost goes back to Machiavelli.

format_quote Originally Posted by KAding

I know it is a stereotype, but even then I think this is inaccurate. Keep in mind that only a minority of atheists are libertarians, many also have a Marxist background, especially historically.

Heck, I'm a libertarian, and I know a Muslim who classes himself as Marxist, but point taken.

Course, I've never really understood how certain people can say 'freedom of thought' on one hand, and 'I don't believe in God and you do, so I'm going to be smug' on the other.

I think it would be more accurate to say the "Stereotypical Anti-Religious Person" is not against rules and boundaries as such, but that he simply does not accept religions as a rational source for morality. In other words, he thinks such supposed "divine revelations" are an asinine way of setting these rules and boundaries.

I've never really understood that mindset. If the rule itself is something generally agreed upon, why get worked up about its source? Isn't that simply a variation of ad hominem?

For instance:

'It is bad luck to walk under ladders'.

Yes. Because any number of accidents could occur. It's not supernatural, but if a supernatural explanation is the only thing keeping some people from doing it, I don't really see the harm.

Similarly, I don't think many people really dispute the morality of say, the Ten Commandments, or the Seven Deadly Sins or the Five Pillars of Islam or the Noble Tenfold Path etc. It's the origin of such things that ruffle some people's feathers, unneccessarily in my opinion.

However, this is not to say everyone, regardless of their religion, would agree with every single religious law of another religion.

format_quote Originally Posted by KAding

I don't understand, how is someone being 'smug' in violation with 'freedom of thought'?

I was being lighthearted about certain types who get on their high horses. To me, there's freedom of thought, and there's respecting other people's beliefs. To me, they go hand in hand. To others they don't necessarily. Some people effectively say 'deeply believe what you want, but I'm still going to laugh at what you deeply believe'. I find that hypocritical, frankly.

Fact of the matter is that few atheists are anarchists. IMHO atheism is just a disbelief in God, not a disbelief in rules and regulation.

Okay.

Good point, if it were so. But it isn't. Religious rules aren't "generally agreed upon".

I mean the religious rules that are generally agreed upon, such as 'thou shalt not kill'.

In the case of religion the source is nevertheless to blame for an irrational moral code. The problem is the outcome, the source is the religious doctrine.

Except those outcomes which do not contradict what is already generally agreed upon. Which is my point.

For example, Islamic rules are not something that is "generally agreed upon". That simply isn't the case. Neither are the Ten Commandments something that is "generally agreed upon", a couple of the commandments are in fact diametrically opposed to the principles outlined in Declaration of Human Rights! "You shall have no other gods before me": oh really, what about this freedom of religion thingy? "Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy": I'm not Christian, why would I? "I am the Lord your God": no you aren't.

So you agree with the other eight? Just because you disagree with two of them doesn't mean all of them are rubbish.

If Christian or Islamic morals really were just about "thou shalt not kill" I might agree with you, but they aren't. There is so much more to religious morals than the ten commandments. Womens rights, gay rights and the rights of religious minorities are IMHO all threatened by the religious doctrine of the three big Abrahamic religions.

And what about the Seven Deadly Sins?

I see what you're saying, but I always get the impression that people throw the baby out with the bathwater so to speak.

But, I'm going way off-topic. This thread is about the worldview of proponents of religion versus that of its critics.

format_quote Originally Posted by KAding

If Christian or Islamic morals really were just about "thou shalt not kill" I might agree with you, but they aren't. There is so much more to religious morals than the ten commandments. Womens rights, gay rights and the rights of religious minorities are IMHO all threatened by the religious doctrine of the three big Abrahamic religions.

Its just that when last time enlightened and educated people wanted to make out something without God/religion there appeared people like Stalin, Lenin, Mao Tse Tung, Pol Pot and Hitler.
I think that it is no coincidence that Holocaust hapenned after the Enlightment. Medival was cruel but people wasnt kiled then on mass scale like animals in factories.
Maybe its not coincidence that in my language words Enlightment (Oświecenie) and Auschwitz (Oświęcim) sound alike.
The biggest slaughters in human history were prepared by those who wanted to build godless society - Holocaust, The Great Hunger in Ukraina, the Maoist cultural revolution.
Without God/religion our civilization is left without morality code. People dying in Gulag or in concentration camps didint think about gay rights or religious minorites rights.

format_quote Originally Posted by Aaron85

People dying in Gulag or in concentration camps didint think about gay rights or religious minorites rights.

Nor did those running them.

format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker

I don't think that is because the Enlightenment gave rise to more evil, just that the Industrial Revolution followed the Enlightenment, so evil people now had factories they could use for their evil purposes.

We can also say that the communism was the perfect child of the most radical Enlightment wing.
There are so many similarities between communists and nowadays leftist liberals that its hard to name them all. I see it perfectly because my country was until 1989 in communists rule, and then after it under liberals rule.
I can say that in culture the nowadays liberals continue the work started by communists.
For example, things like changing the name of Christmas to Winter Holidays was done by communists in my country in 1950. In the same time, they changed Santa Claus into Grandpa Frost. Things like removing crosses from public places or removing religion lessons from school were done in 1950's during the most cruel stalinist regime.

format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker

I don't have any comment on the rest of your post, but I sure don't have a problem with people getting rid of Santa Claus. I love the stories regarding the origins of St. Nicholas, but the modern day Santa is pure paganism and has no part in a celebration of the Christ.

It might not be popular with some folks, but I say take the rabbit out of Easter as well. Although I suppose the justification for keeping it is so non-Christians can still enjoy the holiday....

format_quote Originally Posted by KAding

Of course, there is no one who is "keeping" the rabbit in Easter. Nor is there anyone who needs to justify it. It simply is part of our cultural traditions.

I understand that, but in terms of religious observance it is seen as a pointless and needless distraction. The children like to hunt eggs, so I'm not trying to be "anti-rabbit" or anything.