Christian Atheists

[Theodore]

I have been doing some reflecting on Orthodox Atheism and why it is the way it is. The best I can tell its easiest to explain as an analogy. Consider a garden(the mind), in this garden is a weed, this weed is Christianity. If the Gardner comes along and pulls up only that part above the ground (god), and leaves the roots what good has he done?

The stem and branches are the concept labeled "God", most atheists though once they reject the idea of god do not dig down deep to pull out the roots of the weed, that is all the ideas that they inherited from their former religion. These people I call Christian Atheists, not because they believe in God or a Christ but because they are living in accordance to Christian values without Christ.

What I cant understand is why once these people reject god, dont they go through and clean their minds of the other lies they inherited with their religion?

[anthony]

Because living without morality is anathema to all humans, and ex-religious people

can't free themselves from the one they learned.

Dropping god is probably easier to many than dropping the altruist-collectivist

mindset. The tribe rules, in or out of religion.

[Theodore]

Because living without morality is anathema to all humans, and ex-religious people

can't free themselves from the one they learned.

Dropping god is probably easier to many than dropping the altruist-collectivist

mindset. The tribe rules, in or out of religion.

I am not sure but I think part of it is people are just unaware of the connections. I have been considering adding a section to my blog to "show people the way." not what to think but how. Challenge their basic assumption. And I am not sure which drives me more nuts the people who hold on to Christian values and are not Christian any more. Or the people who go the opposite rout and grab everything "liberal" they can stomach in an attempt to deny their old faith.

[Xray]

I have been doing some reflecting on Orthodox Atheism and why it is the way it is. The best I can tell its easiest to explain as an analogy. Consider a garden(the mind), in this garden is a weed, this weed is Christianity. If the Gardner comes along and pulls up only that part above the ground (god), and leaves the roots what good has he done?

The stem and branches are the concept labeled "God", most atheists though once they reject the idea of god do not dig down deep to pull out the roots of the weed, that is all the ideas that they inherited from their former religion. These people I call Christian Atheists, not because they believe in God or a Christ but because they are living in accordance to Christian values without Christ.

What I cant understand is why once these people reject god, dont they go through and clean their minds of the other lies they inherited with their religion?

Quote from the Wikipedia article on Christian Atheists:

http://en.wikipedia....ristian_atheism

Christian atheism is an ideology in which the belief in the god of Christianity will be rejected or absent but the moral teachings of Jesus are followed.

But Occam's razor applied, the Christ figure would not be needed anymore here. Instead this "Jesus" has has been transformed into something like a secular guru giving people "how to" advice on life.

This is religion "fraying at the seam", so to speak. Imo this is what's going to happen with all dogmatic religions over time. They won't vanish with a "big bang", but become more and more frayed instead; and if there is anything in their teachings that makes some sense (like e. g. the Golden Rule), it will be absorbed into secular ethics.

Imo modern societies are in the process of entering another "Age of Enlightenment" where all ethics will finally be freed from the shackles of religion.

[BaalChatzaf]

What happens when a Christian Atheist marries a Jewish Atheist? Answer: A mixed marriage.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[BaalChatzaf]

Because living without morality is anathema to all humans, and ex-religious people

can't free themselves from the one they learned.

Dropping god is probably easier to many than dropping the altruist-collectivist

mindset. The tribe rules, in or out of religion.

Amen. Christian Atheists will still turn the Other Cheek and Jewish Atheists will plan a Preemptive Attack.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Xray]

I am not sure but I think part of it is people are just unaware of the connections.

I have been considering adding a section to my blog to "show people the way." not what to think but how. Challenge their basic assumption. And I am not sure which drives me more nuts the people who hold on to Christian values and are not Christian any more. Or the people who go the opposite rout and grab everything "liberal" they can stomach in an attempt to deny their old faith.

In case you are in an active discussion/debate with these people, a good method is also to confront them with other not so nice things that the Jesus character is quoted saying in the Bible like e. g. here:

http://www.worldpoli...e-violence.html

Luke 12:49-53

I have come to set fire to the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled! I have a baptism to undergo, and what constraint I am under until the ordeal is over! Do you suppose I came to establish peace on earth? No indeed, I have come to bring division. For from now on, five members of a family will be divided, three against two and two against three; father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother…

['m using the term 'Jesus character' because we are not dealing with direct quotes proven to be from an empirical person].

[Brant Gaede]

I am not sure but I think part of it is people are just unaware of the connections.

I have been considering adding a section to my blog to "show people the way." not what to think but how. Challenge their basic assumption. And I am not sure which drives me more nuts the people who hold on to Christian values and are not Christian any more. Or the people who go the opposite rout and grab everything "liberal" they can stomach in an attempt to deny their old faith.

A good aproach is also to confront them with other not so nice things that the Jesus character is quoted saying in the Bible like e. g. here:

http://www.worldpoli...e-violence.html

Luke 12:49-53

I have come to set fire to the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled! I have a baptism to undergo, and what constraint I am under until the ordeal is over! Do you suppose I came to establish peace on earth? No indeed, I have come to bring division. For from now on, five members of a family will be divided, three against two and two against three; father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother…

['m using the term 'Jesus character' because we are not dealing with direct quotes proven to be from an empirical person].

Yeah, but you can say that about a lot of dead people's quotes.

--Brant

[Xray]

['m using the term 'Jesus character' because we are not dealing with direct quotes proven to be from an empirical person].

Yeah, but you can say that about a lot of dead people's quotes.

My choice of the term empirical might have been misleading here. I wasn't thinking of empirical person as a 'currently existing' person.

[Theodore]

Yes but why do they assume christain morals are correct? Especially when all evidence is contrary.

[Theodore]

Enlightenment or dark age the path to both is the same

[anthony]

I have been doing some reflecting on Orthodox Atheism and why it is the way it is. The best I can tell its easiest to explain as an analogy. Consider a garden(the mind), in this garden is a weed, this weed is Christianity. If the Gardner comes along and pulls up only that part above the ground (god), and leaves the roots what good has he done?

The stem and branches are the concept labeled "God", most atheists though once they reject the idea of god do not dig down deep to pull out the roots of the weed, that is all the ideas that they inherited from their former religion. These people I call Christian Atheists, not because they believe in God or a Christ but because they are living in accordance to Christian values without Christ.

What I cant understand is why once these people reject god, dont they go through and clean their minds of the other lies they inherited with their religion?

Quote from the Wikipedia article on Christian Atheists:

http://en.wikipedia....ristian_atheism

Christian atheism is an ideology in which the belief in the god of Christianity will be rejected or absent but the moral teachings of Jesus are followed.

But Occam's razor applied, the Christ figure would not be needed anymore here. Instead this "Jesus" has has been transformed into something like a secular guru giving people "how to" advice on life.

This is religion "fraying at the seam", so to speak. Imo this is what's going to happen with all dogmatic religions over time. They won't vanish with a "big bang", but become more and more frayed instead; and if there is anything in their teachings that makes some sense (like e. g. the Golden Rule), it will be absorbed into secular ethics.

Imo modern societies are in the process of entering another "Age of Enlightenment" where all ethics will finally be freed from the shackles of religion.

Xray,

Mr Occam's bloody razor is getting dull and worn-out. ;-)

What I think of religion is that it will convert you, or kill you or leave you

totally alone. What you call secular ethics - by which I know by now, you mean a variation of collectivist/statism - will never, ever leave one alone until it has killed off the human spirit. I despise it as much as you despise religion, and more.

That old-time false dichotomy never dies: God - or State, intrinsicism or skepticism.

Your predicted "Age of Enlightenment" entails merely fleeing one for the other.

Witch Doctor or Attila, both primacy of consciousness, and force.

But I've had chats with people of all faiths who were more rational and benevolent

than progressive-atheists (I have known) who think that their logic IS rationality.

[Xray]

Mr Occam's bloody razor is getting dull and worn-out. ;-)

The contrary is the case. Occam's Razor is among the sharpest tools an atheist or agnostic can use in any exchange where theists try to justify their moral decisions via religion.

What you call secular ethics - by which I know by now, you mean a variation of collectivist/statism - will never, ever leave one alone until it has killed off the human spirit. I despise it as much as you despise religion, and more.

Secular ethics has nothing to do with collectivism.

[Brant Gaede]

Mr Occam's bloody razor is getting dull and worn-out. ;-)

The contrary is the case. Occam's Razor is among the sharpest tools an atheist or agnostic can use in any exchange where theists try to justify their moral decisions via religion.

What you call secular ethics - by which I know by now, you mean a variation of collectivist/statism - will never, ever leave one alone until it has killed off the human spirit. I despise it as much as you despise religion, and more.

Secular ethics has nothing to do with collectivism.

Then what ethics do?

--Brant

[anthony]

Mr Occam's bloody razor is getting dull and worn-out. ;-)

The contrary is the case. Occam's Razor is among the sharpest tools an atheist or agnostic can use in any exchange where theists try to justify their moral decisions via religion.

What you call secular ethics - by which I know by now, you mean a variation of collectivist/statism - will never, ever leave one alone until it has killed off the human spirit. I despise it as much as you despise religion, and more.

Secular ethics has nothing to do with collectivism.

Okay, then what is secular ethics to you? Not collectivist, not 'other-worldly', we have so far, but one can't describe something by negatives.

Occam's Razor - "Entities should not be multiplied"- is one of several variations on a theme, I see from Wiki and other sites. It was preceded by Aristotle: "Nature operates in the shortest way possible", and by Aquinas(13thC):"If a thing can be done by means of one, it is superfluous to do it by means of several, for we observe that nature does not employ two instruments if one suffices." Then Einstein: "Make things as simple as possible, but no simpler."

For a simple rule of thumb - a general guide - it's self-evidently logical; but what about when things are vastly complex, for higher concepts?

Occam's "Law of Parsimony" breaks down here. How does one explicate the 'metaphysical nature of man' after the obvious, man's biology, instincts, and so on: the ridiculous materialist/determinist/empirical explanation?

Also, what if a theist cleverly turns Occam's argument round on you by saying "I think the concept of God as Creator is far simpler than the concept of evolution." He'd have a point, no? Few people can say they understand evolution properly.

You'd be left without any response, hoist by your own petard.

Climate change and GW - similarly. Too complex to be essentialized with one succinct explanation.

[Xray]

Secular ethics has nothing to do with collectivism.

Then what ethics do?

All totalitarian systems for example produce moral codes that are collectivist. A theocracy can be every bit as collectivist as communism.

'Collectivism' is not an implicit semantic marker of secular ethics; that was my point.

A secular ethics that e. g. respects individual rights is not collectivist.

[Xray]

Okay, then what is secular ethics to you? Not collectivist, not 'other-worldly', we have so far, but one can't describe something by negatives.

The rejection of a religious justification for ethical decisons is an essential part of the secular ethics I'm advocating, with epistemology providing the basis.

Epistemology comes first. The 'What can we know?', and the 'What do we know, given the context of current research'? provides the foundation the house is built on, so to speak.

Now if the building of the 'house of ethics' is already miserably flawed right from the start if one tries to justify ethical decsions on religious grounds, this flaw can not only be rejected as epistemologically unacceptable, it can be also be used to pull the ground from the opponents' feet, and this goes deeper than for mere reasons of winning a debate. At the end of my post, I'll provide a drastic example of recent days which serves as an illustration of this being no 'philosophical Ivory Tower' issue at all.

Every non-secular ethics, without exception, has no evidence whatsoever to offer, it is empty-handed, while the other party has all the evidence in form of research data. How it uses the research data is another story; what is important that it can provide the data.

This is why pathocentric ethics has such a strong epistemological basis. It is pathocentric ethics that e. g. has pushed forward the development of more and more people preferring to eat eggs from free-range chickens that have a life suited to their nature, instead of being confined in cages under horrible conditions.

Here is a recent monstrous example of a Catholic bishop (whose job is to propagate a non-secular ethics) trying to deny the status of humanity to non-religious persons:

The German military bishop Overbeck flat-out asserted that without religion and without practiced religion, there exists no humanity:

Original German text, where he also states that "on the grounds of a firm religious belief, decisions can be made more conscientiously":

http://www.giordano-...ischof-overbeck

"Ohne Religion und ohne gelebte Praxis von Religion gibt es kein Menschsein." Zudem meinte Overbeck gegenüber der Katholischen Nachrichtenagentur(KNA), dass konfessionsfreie Soldaten nicht so gewissenhaft entscheiden könnten wie religiöse: "Oberste Priorität hat, dass Soldaten Gewalt nur im äußersten Notfall und vor allem verantwortungsvoll einsetzen. Mit einem festen Glauben lassen sich solche Entscheidungen gewissenhafter treffen."

Not only can bishop Overbeck have no evidence of any god ever having commanded anything to anyone, he also blocks out the fact that people have often massacred each other in the name of their firm opposing religious beliefs.

Philosopher Slavoj Zizek comments:

"More than a century ago, in his Karamazov Brothers, Dostoyevsky warned against the dangers of the godless moral nihilism: “If God doesn’t exist, then everything is permitted.” The French “new philosopher” Andre Glucksmann even applied Dostoyevsky’s critique of godless nihilism to 9/11, as the title of his book – Dostoyevsky in Manhattan – suggests. He couldn’t have been more wrong: the lesson of today’s terrorism is that if there IS God, then everything, up to blowing up hundreds of innocent bystanders, is permitted – to those who claim to act directly on behalf of God, as the instruments of His will, since, clearly, a direct link to God justifies our violation of any “merely human” constraints and considerations. The “godless” Stalinist Communists are the ultimate proof of it: everything was permitted to them since they perceived themselves as direct instruments of their divinity, the Historical Necessity of Progress towards Communism."

http://www.lacan.com/zizantinomies.htm

Non-secular ethics has no ground to stand on, and in our time, its propagators are finally more and more confronted with this fact.

Since religious texts don't constitute evidence of the existence of a deity, grounding a "morality" on them can only be fallacious.

Gone are the times where Christian church leaders could put those on the stake who dared to point out contradictions within the belief, or downright falsehoods, or whose belief contradicted the religious dogma.

History tells us that in the long run, nothing can stop the rise of reason, which is why all attempts to stop it have to resort to coercion and threat. Like for example, to the threat of eternal hellfire for apostates.

Whereas without coercion, reason will naturally flourish because it lies in the human spirit to examine and question issues.

It is therefore no surprise that verbatim attacks on reason have been launched by religious leaders, for example by Martin Luther:

"Wer ... ein Christ sein will, der ... steche seiner Vernunft die Augen aus."

('Whoever wants to be a Christian should tear the eyes out of his reason.')

(Martin Luther, Gesamtausgabe in 25 Bänden, herausgegeben von Johann G. Walch, Concordia Publishing House St. Louis 1880-1910, Band V, S. 452)

Reason is indeed a danger to all dogmatic religion.

[Brant Gaede]

Chicken ethics.

--Brant

[anthony]

Xray,

(Not too much about 'secular ethics' yet, but I'm sure you have more.)

Reading your post, it strikes me that you are trapped like a ping-pong ball,

bouncing between logical empiricism (which you call epistemology) and religion.

Eliminate religion from your mind, first, is my best advice. The more energy you

expend criticising it, the more credence you allow it in your own mind, and the

less independently you can think.

For logic to have any overwhelming strength (over mysticism for example), it should be expanded to true epistemology which incorporates much, much more than logic - the building of ever heightening concepts. Logic is relatively easy (at least, one's

conclusions are evidently true/false immediately) but the rest takes extended effort. Empirical thought - alone - is another trap, imo.

Second, O'ist epistemology is not as you stated it ("What can we know...") but this instead: "What do I know, and how do I know it? It is the task of epistemology to provide the answer to the 'How?' Which then enables the special sciences to provide the answer to the 'What'".[AR]

Again, I feel you are taking the empirical/scientific stance, not the philosophical.

More importantly, epistemology certainly does NOT come first as base for morality.

You are, let's say, approached to 'design' an ethical system for a fairly intelligent, alien race.

Your first queries will by necessity involve the central question "WHAT are you?"

Until you've established the aliens' fundamental identity, you cannot design their ethics..

Let's assume they don't possess volition, autonomy, self-awareness etc., but exist completely in tight-knit groups, mainly following instincts and repetitive actions to survive - in which case the altruist-collectivist morality would be the right one for them. Yeah, science fiction, I know.

Identification leads the way. His metaphysical nature defines what man can and should do, (and what he's limited by). Closely after comes epistemology, combining with it to form his morality.

(But I've noticed often that you ignore or deign metaphysics...)

[Xray]

For a simple rule of thumb - a general guide - it's self-evidently logical; but what about when things are vastly complex, for higher concepts?

Occam's "Law of Parsimony" breaks down here. How does one explicate the 'metaphysical nature of man' after the obvious, man's biology, instincts, and so on: the ridiculous materialist/determinist/empirical explanation?

Occam's razor (entia non sunt multiplicanda sine necessitate) works quite well also in complex cases because of the modifier 'necessitate'.

So if it shoud be 'necessary' to take into account more aspects to research an issue, one can add as many elements as needed.

Also, what if a theist cleverly turns Occam's argument round on you by saying "I think the concept of God as Creator is far simpler than the concept of evolution." He'd have a point, no? Few people can say they understand evolution properly.

You'd be left without any response, hoist by your own petard.

In that case, the burden of proof that "the concept of God as Creator is far simpler than the concept of evolution" is on the theist, whom I would confront with many concrete examples and ask the theist to conduct his/her proof.

I'd start with Evolution itself. My first question to the theist would be: "How do you explain - on the basis of your "God as the Creator is far simpler than the concept of evolution" premise - the fact that we humans share more than 95 % of our genes with our chimp and bonobo cousins?"

[Xray]

Xray,

(Not too much about 'secular ethics' yet, but I'm sure you have more.)

There's more to come, yes.

I only wanted to refute any claims and tenets by a non-secular ethics as epistemologically uncceptable first, so that we can fully concentrate on secular ethics.

Reading your post, it strikes me that you are trapped like a ping-pong ball,

bouncing between logical empiricism (which you call epistemology) and religion.

Eliminate religion from your mind, first, is my best advice. The more energy you

expend criticising it, the more credence you allow it in your own mind, and the

less independently you can think.

See above. The energy spent on non-secular ethics was for refutation purposes.

For logic to have any overwhelming strength (over mysticism for example), it should be expanded to true epistemology which incorporates much, much more than logic - the building of ever heightening concepts. Logic is relatively easy (at least, one's

conclusions are evidently true/false immediately) but the rest takes extended effort.

My focus is not that much on logical operations because one can make all kinds of (factually wrong) 'logical' conclusions from false premises.

The challenge therefore lies in examining the premises.

Second, O'ist epistemology is not as you stated it ("What can we know...") but this instead: "What do I know, and how do I know it? It is the task of epistemology to provide the answer to the 'How?' Which then enables the special sciences to provide the answer to the 'What'".[AR]

The "What can I know" is from Kant.

Since epistemology is the study of knowledge, I often use the term in philosophical discussions when the focus is on known facts (as opposed, for example, to moral demands).

Again, I feel you are taking the empirical/scientific stance, not the philosophical.

My frequent stressing of the empirical and the scientific is grounded in the firm convction that no contemporary philosophy can afford to disregard the results of scientific research. The last thing I would want for philosophy is to be in an Ivory Tower.

More importantly, epistemology certainly does NOT come first as base for morality.

But how can one justify a moral decision without recurring to.what we know about human nature?

You are, let's say, approached to 'design' an ethical system for a fairly intelligent, alien race.

Your first queries will by necessity involve the central question "WHAT are you?"

Until you've established the aliens' fundamental identity, you cannot design their ethics..

In short, I will have to acquire knowledge about their identity.

Identification leads the way. His metaphysical nature defines what man can and should do, (and what he's limited by). Closely after comes epistemology, combining with it to form his morality.

(But I've noticed often that you ignore or deign metaphysics...)

The term metaphysics is so 'terminologically muddled' that I try to avoid it altogether.

Here's a short overview of the somewhat confusing history of the term metaphysics:

http://en.wikipedia....iki/Metaphysics

Etymology

The word "metaphysics" derives from the Greek words μετά (metá) ("beyond" or "after") and φυσικά (physiká) ("physics").^[7] It was first used as the title for several of Aristotle's works, because they were usually anthologized after the works on physics in complete editions. The prefix meta- ("beyond") indicates that these works come "after" the chapters on physics. However, Aristotle himself did not call the subject of these books "metaphysics": he referred to it as "first philosophy." The editor of Aristotle's works, Andronicus of Rhodes, is thought to have placed the books on first philosophy right after another work, Physics, and called them τὰ μετὰ τὰ φυσικὰ βιβλία (ta meta ta physika biblia) or "the books that come after the [books on] physics". This was misread by Latin scholiasts, who thought it meant "the science of what is beyond the physical".

However, once the name was given, the commentators sought to find intrinsic reasons for its appropriateness. For instance, it was understood to mean "the science of the world beyond nature (phusis in Greek)," that is, the science of the immaterial. Again, it was understood to refer to the chronological or pedagogical order among our philosophical studies, so that the "metaphysical sciences would mean, those that we study after having mastered the sciences that deal with the physical world" (St. Thomas Aquinas, "In Lib, Boeth. de Trin.", V, 1).

There is a widespread use of the term in current popular literature, which replicates this error, i.e. that metaphysical means spiritual non-physical: thus, "metaphysical healing" means healing by means of remedies that are not physical.^[8]

So one finds the term "metaphysics" as referring to "pertaining to reality", side by side with its precise opposite: "the supernatural, the spiritual".

Contradictions like the above are the reason why I steer clear of the term.

Many philosophical terms were coined in a pre-scientific age - is there any need to cling to them forever?

[Brant Gaede]

Metaphysics is clearly understood respecting Objectivism and it couldn't be simpler or more basic. Epistemology is more than the study of knowledge. The supposition that knowledge is basic unto itself is circular, cutting out reality (metaphysics). That's when you get Bob's "word salad." Of course that's not quite what is going on here, which is stealing metaphysics while denying the crime.

--Brant

[anthony]

The supposition that knowledge is basic unto itself is circular, cutting out reality (metaphysics).

--Brant

Brilliantly simple. It took me pages to try to say this, and fall short.

[Brant Gaede]

The supposition that knowledge is basic unto itself is circular, cutting out reality (metaphysics).

--Brant

Brilliantly simple. It took me pages to try to say this, and fall short.

It also implicitly supposes that knowledge is static essentially the same way collectivists suppose wealth is static. They also chuck reality. They chuck creation and those that create knowledge and wealth. Thus the creators get eaten alive or aborted.

--Brant

[anthony]

So one finds the term "metaphysics" as referring to "pertaining to reality", side by side with its precise opposite: "the supernatural, the spiritual".

Contradictions like the above are the reason why I steer clear of the term.

Many philosophical terms were coined in a pre-scientific age - is there any need to cling to them forever?

But, if you "steer clear" of metaphysics, you can't have a philosophy (or an ethics.)

Also, metaphysics won't steer clear of you.

That the concept was 'borrowed' by religions does not make it less important, but more.

Actually though - you bear out for me the cause that one-time believers have difficulty

transforming into philosophy: their psychological resistance to religious-, or any kind

of metaphysics.

iow:

Man's fundamental nature - objectively - isn't acceptable to them because of how the

Church drilled supernatural metaphysics into them.

So Rand was right, that the intrinsicist (mystical), and the Skeptic are one and the same, essentially. Only the name of the 'authority' changes: god -> science; religion -> collectivism.

Following from that, is your conviction that concepts coined in "a pre-scientific age"

are moot, because, you indicate, science has refuted them. This is a clear Skeptical position - that there exist no absolutes. As I observed in that thread, philo-skeptics can never seem to grasp that man's basic characteristics and identity is unchanging, for all time.

(Necessitating a continual mutation Skeptics would like to apply to his moral codes.)

Severe fallacies like this arise when you place logic above identity.