Is the difference between good and evil just a matter of what any particular group of human beings say it is? Many people, including some contributors to this thread, seem to believe that ethical truths are culturally contingent in a way scientific truths are not. Some would extend this relativism to excuse acts of mass destruction, on the minimal condition that the perpetrators actions were in accord with the mandates of their private framework. Taken to its conclusion this thinking gives way to nihilism.
But a rational approach to ethics becomes possible given that questions of right and wrong are really questions about the happiness and suffering of sentient creatures. It is because we have the power to determine the welfare of others that we are laden with responsibilities, some of which grave enough to be matters of law.
The fact that people of different times or cultures, with their myths, taboos, and supernatural baggage disagree about ethical questions suggests nothing about the status of moral truth. What sense would it make to consult Mohamed about protein synthesis? And if there are right and wrong answers to basic ethical questions, they similarly are best sought in the present. (I repeat, relativism is always an option. It can just as well justify the sincerely intentioned use of nuclear weapons in response to the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001)
Ethical intuitions are rooted in our biological makeup. The impulse to save a stranger’s child from drowning is not learned from biblical scripture or any reading. It’s part of the adaptive advantage that comes with incurring favor with others for favors done. Misanthropic conduct is maladaptive. The immediate perpetrators of 911 simply died, no matter what reward they expected at the nanosecond preceding their expiry. The mastermind, bin Laden, did not follow up his stratagem with a warning that should America not act in accordance with some demand there would be more carnage. He simply celebrated and promised more, and declared the whole carnage to be mandated by his God.
I don’t believe bin Laden when he claims divine sanction. He sends brainwashed innocents to stage a symbolic act of theater to satisfy his own ego, wishing he were a prophet. He’s a terminally ill, moral leper, bending a religion into a license to murder.
His defenders in this thread can spout all the relativism they want. They American response was ethically flawed, but it was in response to something, not an act of theater.
I can't help but feel that this is in response to me, but let me say that the above is not my position at all. I am as much a moral absolutist as you are likely to find. My point is just that you cannot endorse dichotomy- you cannot support people believing something wicked, while expecting (demanding?) them not to do wicked things. It's unreasonable, and ultimately cruel. Again, if a person things God wants them to kill babies, then they better kill babies. I make that statement not as an endorsement of killing babies, but as a simple fact of how it has to be. What you're saying, to me, seems like a claim that people should be allowed to 'believe' the religious claims that you find foolish, but somehow not believe them strongly enough that their behavior is any different from that of a secular humanist. That just isn't going to happen, like it or not.
Not only is it not a given that ethics are about happiness and suffering, it’s also not a given that only the suffering of sentient creatures is relevant. It’s not even a given as to what counts as a ‘sentient creature’.
This, I agree with.
Also true. That many people disagree about moral truths may just mean that moral questions are difficult, not subjective.
Here, you have no case. We would not consult Mohammed about protein synthesis, because he had no idea what protein is. However, he presumably did know what poor people are, that people need food, shelter, and so on, and that they suffer if they go without these. Now, to an extent problems change, but to another extent, they stay the same, and if trends in ethics change, the idea that we ought to go with whatever is modern is a matter of taste, first and foremost.
Again, if you’re seeing my comments as some sort of defense of bin Laden, you’re taking me all wrong.
My My, Making it all personal? So unlike you. FWIW, Anyone who has it wrapped up isn’t participating on discussion boards. You may dismiss me, but you can’t dismiss the irrationality of behaviors that in the secular world would get you into a mental hospital but recieve a pass because they are matters of “faith”. The acts of violence is one thing, but it is the religious beliefs that fuel the fire. But that isn’t religions fault right? It is just a “misinterpretation”. If religion is to serve humanity, then it must begin to be judged by the same criteria we expect of all other human institutions.
Precisely the problem. For one thing, there is no ‘secular world’ outside of your imagination and Communist China- not even there. The idea of a secular world is really a fantasy made up by the minority of irreligious and anti-religious people to set up this false dichotomy and compartmentalized thinking that I’m trying to explode here in this thread. Again, I have no problem with someone saying “Christianity is rediculous, and people ought not believe that” if they can back it up. However, saying “People should be Christians if they feel the need, so long as they don’t act any different than atheists” is foolish on two levels:
1.) It’s never going to happen, and
2.) Expecting people not to act in accordance with their convictions is unreasonable, unfair, and totalitarian. Again, as I said, if someone believes that God wants them to kill the green people, then they ought to kill the green people. That is to say, thinking we can curb people’s behavior without addressing the beliefs that bring it about will always be in vain. Why would we want a society of God-justified, green-people-hating citizens walking around with their rage barely suppressed because Secularism demands it? Shouldn’t we just educate them about God and green people instead?
Yes, that's right, exactly. Religious beliefs are the problem, if there is a problem. That's why what I've always advocated is that secular people stop hiding behind this BS tolerance front, and admit what they really feel- that everybody ought to be an atheist, or vaguely spiritual with no real convictions, and that religious people and religious ideals are a plague on humanity that ought to be eliminated if possible. Since you feel that way, (and have been less and less shy about admitting it as the years roll on, I might add) the first step to addressing such claims is to get people to actually say them out loud, instead of pretending they want to live and let live, which you [i]certainly do not. [/i]
Now, do I think that religion itself is some big problem that needs to be addressed? No, not at root I don't. But it can't be discussed as long as the secularists have this two-faced, passive-aggressive attitude about the whole thing. That is to say, Sam Harris is wrong, but at least he's honest.
Nono, it’s much more reasonable to think that Religion is this monolithic force in the world that can be succinctly defined and then blamed for society’s problems. Yes, that’s probably it. Buddism, Taosim, Scientology, Christianity and Islam are all called ‘Religion’ in the Encylopedia, so they must all be equally culpable of whatever it is one is guilty of.
Or, maybe the proper practice of religion (even traditional, stodgy, exclusivist religion) doesn’t tend to make the news, as it doesn’t involve explosions, and has been pretty much the same old thing for the past couple millennia. The problem the approach you seem to want to take is, I already know that religion doesn’t have to be a problem, and it doesn’t take some exciting modern interpretation to make not a problem. Millions of other people know this too, because they live in these peaceful, enriching traditions- but it’s certainly not newsworthy.
I reiterate. If some sect’s religion mandates wiping out “green people” – genocide – that is, adding divine sanction to ideology, then Nazism plus God would in Ucciscore’s paradigm have been justified Hitler in carrying out the Holocaust. Why are we even arguing this?
And what about Abraham ready to kill his son, so as somkehow to prove his faith in God? Assume it’s literal, and tell me ethics have not advanced in some parts of the world? Would any sane Jew be ready to sacrifice his child tyo prove his faith in God, or for any reason?
Not because this thing called secularism demands it…but because reason demands it.
Wanted to add this:
You cant eliminate peoples convictions by force that’s true…better to tackle them with reason/education. But reason often doesn’t work well against faith based beliefs. If you acknowledge faith as a valid basis for a conviction, how can it be argued against?
“Secularism” isn’t this “thing”. It’s the absence of these “things” that would put barriers to free thought and inquiry. Active opposition to shackled thought visibly began with Copernicus and Galileo. Secular Humanists oppose myth-ridden thinking in the same spirit.
Did you know that the Chair of the President’s Council On Bioethics, who advised Bush on the Stem Cell matter, is a religionist who disavows evolution? Does that sit well with you? A man advising a scientifically illiterate president on a vital matter as stem cell research, disavows an unassailed theory that a child can grasp.
And intelligent members of this forum are preaching tolerance for religions that promote ignorance, intolerance, and even genocide, in the mind of one. Secular Humanists wage a war of ideas against such pernicious junk doctrines and are intolerant of intolerance when it preaches harmful action.
Sorry for not replying sooner but I really wanted to put some thought into this.
But there is a secular world - one created by religion. If there weren’t, you wouldn’t have the terms - invented by religion - irreligious and anti-religious. But that is quibble. Would you like it better if I used the term non-religious? That would include all of the terms of definition for anyone outside a specific religion.
I agree that people should act within their convictions. That said, a single caveat: Your convictions about your spiritual relationship with the ineffable are yours and yours alone, but when your convictions affect others, then they should stand before reason, not edicts of interpretation of words written for a distant culture in a distant time. In short, there is spirituality, and then there is religion. Your spirituality is none of my business, but how you act out your religion is, if those acts affect me. And yes to your observation that we cannot curb behavior without addressing the beliefs behind that behavior.
A couple of things here. Agreed that we cannot challenge the beliefs behind irrational acts is crap. I think I’ve been pretty much an advocate of that challenge, and more so over the last few years as the violence in the name of God has escalated.
I don’t believe that everybody ought to be an aetheist. My spiritual relationship with the ineffable isn’t vague in the least, and I act on my convictions. I don’t believe in the elimination of religious people, and I strongly support the ideals of religion to the extent that there is some degree of rationality behind them.
I’ll ignore you painting me with a 4" house brush… I do indeed support live and let live. If there is a problem with that, it comes from the religious side does it not? One more time, your business is yours until it affects me. Most of us non-religious types understand the need to back our actions with some sort of rationality. Only the religious demand that the world has to match the “word of God”, and it makes no difference if the word has any present day rational explanation. The word is the word.
I think you may have missed some of Harris’ message. He doesn’t dismiss the individuals spiritual experience, but only disagrees with the irrational claims and acts behind religious belief.
Finally, I honor anyone in their search for an understanding of the ineffable. It is our spiritual hunger that drives us to seek out that understanding. But spiritual understanding is not religion, and I feel quite comfortable challenging the irrational religion-driven meddling of the true believers who know what is best for me because the bible told them so.
I realise that. I said this thing called secularism to Uccisore not because I wished to demean secularism but because dividing people up between secular humanists and religionists can sometimes be counterproductive. When Uccisore said “Why would we want a society of God-justified, green-people-hating citizens walking around with their rage barely suppressed because Secularism demands it” it seemed to me he was saying people with religious convictions resent being instructed by secularism. I was just reiterating that you dont have to be a secular humanist to believe green-people-hating is unreasonable. I think that’s what I was doing…I’ve confused myself here a bit, mainly because I didn’t quite understand Uccisore’s post.
I agree with almost everything you’ve said Ric, it all makes sense, but, with respect, I must say you are coming across as a bit preachy in tone…even your photograph has a guru-like aura to it.
Ah, but we aren't talking about a specific religion. Sure, the Baptists might refer to the Buddists as part of the secular world, but we're talking secular vs. religion as a whole- and as I said, there is no secular world. Almost everybody is religious. Unless the Christians are planning on sneaking into atheist reading circles or something, there's no secular world they need to worry about functioning within. Unless you mean in the most general sense of secular, just, things we do when we aren't in a religious service. If that's it, then we're equivocating to say that secular in that sense ought to mean secular in the sense of devoid from religious influence. My point is that religious people are not these strange intruders from another place, trying to wreak havoc on an atheistic/agnostic world. If anything, it's the other way around.
We mostly agree on that, except that I don’t see any reason why ‘interpretations of words written for a distant culture’ needs to be juxtaposed against reason. If the convictions are reasonable, then they are reasonable regardless of when and where they come from. To assume by default that we have reason on the one hand, and tradition on the other is to reach our conclusions before the examination has been done.
But yes, largely what I came into this thread to say was that expecting religious people to not act on their convictions is silly- if a person thinks their convictions are so bad, they ought to be trying to change them.
But then how do you gauge rationality outside your own opinion? I don't think we need to bother with those who are blowing themselves up, obviously reason isn't an issue there, but usually when you and I have these discussions, we aren't talking about those extremists, we're talking about 'extremists' who do radical things like oppose abortion or vote for Republicans. I mean, if on one hand you say you support rational religious ideals, but then qualify it to say that you think all religions are irrational, that's not exactly much of an olive branch, and I don't see how it's radically different from just saying all religion is folly and ought to be gone.
Ha! So you’re more of a benchwarmer for the winning side you intend to be on, then? The one that’s going to make religion, ALL religon, the losers?
Or the communists, or the facists, or any large group of people with money and firearms, sure.
Um, most of you non-religious types are ignorant barbarians who couldn't even spell 'theodicy', much less know enough about philosophy to know the importance of having a rational one. [i]Just like[/i] most of the religious types, I will hasten to add. Don't compare Johnny Churchpew to the authors of books you read, or even to the average person here on ILP.
If you feel so comfortable with the idea, you ought to try doing it sometime! Really all I see from you is a bald assertion that Religion IS irrational, and an unwillingness to explore lines of thought that disagree- that's not a challenge. No religious person is going to care about anything you say, if they have to view themselves as fools and their traditions as bollocks for the [i]sake of argument[/i] in order to even converse with you.
And That’s a nice segway to Leda’s comments about my posts:
Leda
While religious people do tend to resent that, that's not exactly the point I'm trying to make- after all, why should you care if religious people resent something? What I'm trying to say is that religious people won't see any [i]need[/i] to be instructed by secularism. Religious people aren't playing an elaborate game of "Let's Pretend". It's not as though we can talk about our gods, our morals, our spirituality, and then put it all away when it's time to do serious things. Asking a religious person to follow some secular mandate for public discourse and policy would be exactly like a religious person saying, "Yes yes, it's fine for you to play at your atheism during the week, so long as you still show up to Church on Sunday." Completely independant of the question of whether or not the world would be a better place if people behaved that way, they just aren't going to, so it's irrelevant. An atheist isn't a Christian living a life of sin, and a religious person isn't a secular person playing make-believe.
Now don’t go black and white on me. There is much wisdom to be found in religion and I in no way would deny that, BUT the the words are just words and they should stand the test of whatever rationality can be brought to bear. That is true of religion, philosophy, or whatever “belief” system one cares to proclaim. There is no either-or in anything I have said.
Like everyone else, I have beliefs that have no rational basis. The difference is that I don’t try to foist them off on others because some book says I’m right. It may be true that I hate little green men and think they ought to be exterminated, but I won’t follow through on that conviction. Why? Because I have no rational basis for doing so. So I might just have to compromise with those filthy green mutants and let them live. Its dawned on me that they have as much right to be here as I do.
The same goes for abortion or any of the so-called extremist positions on any or all sides. Sure, I have my opinions, but without a rational explanation, I’m not in any position to tell you how to think or to be. If I told you God whispered in my ear that abortion is wrong and that you were committing murder, you would have every right to tell me to… uhhh, well, you know.
This isn’t to say that much in any religion isn’t rational. All address the how shall we live issues with great wisdom, but to declare that I should act in certain ways with no more than “the bible told me so” shouldn’t bring any surprises when I tell you to mind your own business.
Rationality is no panacea either, but it certainly has more credibility than the belief that I should kill all those green people because God whispered in my ear.
Benchwarmer on the winning side? Hardly. If that’s all I wanted, why would I be talking to you? And yes, the irrational literalists will destory their own house. They’re doing that right now. People capable of REASON, including all who profess religion are watching. Do you really think that the majority of Americans believe the profound wisdom of Falwell declaring that natural disasters is God punishing the wicked? How much damage does that do to religion?
And as for my “unwillingness” to explore lines of thought? What ARE you talking about? If you wish to discuss anything with a rational - hell, even semi-rational basis, go for it. If you think that I look upon religious people as fools, you have never understood anything I’ve ever said.
[quote=“RicDemian”]
As time advances, do our religious beliefs subsume the increasing data of human experience? If religion addresses a genuine body of understanding and human necessity, then it should be susceptible to progress; its doctrines should be more useful, rather than less. Progress in religion, as in other fields, would have to be a matter of present inquiry, not the mere reiteration of past doctrine. The truth should be discoverable now, and describable in terms that don’t offend the rest of our understanding of the world.
Maybe to some religious beliefs subsume the data of experience. Because religion makes no real claims of scientific evidence,(creationism aside), it doesn’t have to have a particular standard of truth. When religion addresses genuine bodies of understanding, it sort of points toward the uncertainties of them. Whether or not this does any harm to the scientific world view is arguable but doubtful. What religion does as far as progress is concerned, is that it shows that while other diciplines make progress on thier own terms, that there’s still a possibility for another point of view. They inquire about the present when they oppose abortion, or take up holy wars. They reiterates past doctrines to justify thier actions. The truth should be discoverable by now, and if we threw out things which oppose our preferred method of truth seeking (science, for some), then we can call what science gives us the truth. Religion is the most obnoxious thing to have to deal with when it comes to making any sort of truth statement. It serves the purpose of fueling the strongest forms of skepticism. This is good in that these argument forms when given the content necessary for criticizing things like science which appear truthful to our common intuitions, illustrate to us that no matter what we know from our empirical evidence, that things still remain that we may not be able to understand on those terms. Religious fanatics who go around ranting and raving about Jesus and heaven and hell are stupid and for the most part a waste of time to argue with. But what the best of them do, is become scientists, or economists, or strong skeptics or what have you, and put the contradiction that they hold between empirical truth and faith into a dialectic which could be seen as a very good way to overturn the weaker empirical evidence progress toward stronger science and in turn stronger, (more coherent) religion.
No doubt there has been progress in the area of technology (albeit with a lot of unanticipated negative consequences). But in terms of ethical behavior, what evidence is there that society has done anything more than rearranging the deck chairs on the sinking ship of civilization?
Let me back up a bit. You say that religious claims should stand this test. Why? What is at stake if they do not? What if, in the worst and most likely scenario, some people think they do and other people think they don't? It seems to me that many religions meet this claim in a general way- enough people find religion to be rational, or can argue for it coherently, that it's not trivally and obviously irrational like some things are.
Yes, Christians happen to believe a series of moral and spiritual tenets, and yes, they can be found in a [i]book[/i]. But again, you have completely skipped over the important part here, which is whether or not these beliefs [i]actually are[/i] irrational, or whether there's some meaningful difference between a Christian operating under his convictions vs. an atheist doing the same thing. Again, if the starting assumption is that the claims of the religionist are a bunch of irrational, indefensible crap, then why are we even having the discussion? I'm not interested in defending crap, and I certainly don't think crap ideas should be influencing our society.
What exactly do you mean by foisting? Are you just talking about crazy irrelevant people who blow themselves up and encourage others to do so, or are you talking about groups who have joined the dialogue and can be worked with, like political religious conservatives and the like?
There is no good ‘why’. If you actually believe that, actually believe it, then if you don’t act on it you are weak, cowardly, ignorant or immoral. That’s all there is too it. Asking someone to believe something and ignore that belief in their lives is asking them to be a hypocrite. But you don’t believe stuff like that- the stuff you actually believe is what leads you towards being the kind of person you display to others, yes?
Of course you do- your rational basis for acting on it is the same as your rational basis for believing it in the first place, and that's my whole point in this thread. A Religionist that believes in X and acts Y is wicked, I don't care what X and Y are.
Um, then you don't 'actually' think they ought to be exterminated then, do you?
Absolutely. If you're presumption, though, is that the religious people are the irrational ones in situations like the above, then I don't see how we can progress. I'm not willing to take it for granted, and you're not willing to argue for it, so what's left? Again, it seems to me that you want to start the discussion with all the interesting points already decided in your favor. No serious religious thinker is going to bother entering into a discussion that begins "Now, granting that all religious beliefs are irrational..."
If you want to go on the record as saying that [i]yours[/i] are, feel free!
What the hell, tentative? Am I not a religious person? Do you see me presenting arguments along those lines? What’s the point, if someone that has been here as long as me still has to tell someone that’s been here as long as you, that we aren’t all Jerry Freaking Falwell? If I wanted to argue against abortion, you know I could do a good job, and I wouldn’t even have to bring up the Big G.
Certainly. THat would be such a poor argument, that I can’t see why it would convince anybody that wasn’t already in the fold.
The damage is exacerbated when people hold him up as the example of what religion is like, over and over and over again, because they have a game they want to win. Yeah, from what I know, Fallwell doesn't sound like he has his act together very well, I dunno, I've never actually listened to him. Is he the 700 Club guy, or is that a different one? Anyways, Fallwell being an idiot doesn't mean abortion isn't evil, or that God doesn't exist and that Jesus Christ isn't man's salvation. It just means that guy is an idiot. Like I said, religion is a great thing, it just doesn't make the news.
Then I guess I don’t understand a thing, then, because that has seemed to be the thrust of your interaction in this thread so far. If much of religion can be rational, then it only follows that religious thought can contribute rationally to politics and moral debate and such.
I care only in so far as I’d rather not have a society of God-justified green-people-hating citizens walking around with their rage barely suppressed. You keep refering to secularism but what you are really saying is that religious people cant be reasoned with, aren’t you? You said earlier "shouldn’t we just educate them about God and green people instead? " Wouldn’t that involve reason or do you mean something else?
That’s why I substituted reason for secularism. Public discourse over the green-people-eating matter needn’t be driven just by secularism…it’s more a matter of what a society can reasonably expect from its citizens and any reasonable person, secular or religious, can see green-people-eating is not on. If the green-people-eaters cant accept this then they’ll have to pay the price of their actions and we’ll have to cop their supressed rage. No-one ever said acting according to conscience comes without cost…if people want to want to adhere to convictions that are unreasonable and harm others, the rest of us are justified in opposing them, whether they believe it’s right for them or not.
Thought experiment:
God exists. You know He exists, but He has commanded you to perform an act [Y] that is completely against your moral convictions. Would it be weak and wicked to act Y?
Jeez, no. If anything, I think I'm the one person saying the opposite of that. My understanding of Ric and tentative is that they are saying religion is unreasonable and un-reason-able, and so we should just leave people to their crazy ideas, and simply enforce standards of behavior regardless of what they believe. What I'm saying is that if a religious creed is leading to problems, reason is the first best way to approach it.
I agree with all of this- the only problem I would have is with the assumption that the religious are always in the position of being the ‘green people eaters’. If you’re approaching someone with the attitude that they are wrong no matter what, and you’re goal is to persuade them, you aren’t approach them with reason. One of the risks of using reason is that you must assume the position you are approaching is worthy of it. That’s why we do things like kidnap people from cults to detoxify their minds. There’s a lot more than reason going on there, and what justifies us is that the cult doesn’t deserve a reasonable response. The question is, is that how you want to handle all religion?
First, let me say this is already different from my point: If the person has a not-Y moral conviction, then at least they have that as a good reason why they might not perform Y.
Anyways, if your hypothetical is like the Abraham/Isaac story, then the perfect answer would be to do what God commands without hesitation. However, I wouldn’t say a person would be wicked for doing otherwise in a situation like that. The kind of wicked situation I was thinking of was when someone’s moral convictions match their religious convictions, and they act against them anyway because of secular, societal pressures. That to me would be wicked and cowardly, and it seems to be what Ric is advocating.
Just as the religious moderates need to stop hiding behind their tolerance of hardcore Christian nationalism of the sort that Fallwell, Dobson, Robertson and their ilk propogate.
Not the people but, sure, some of those religious ideas need to go. Yesterday isn’t too soon, IMO. And the “go forth and convert” instructions are at the top of my list. If that one thing would stop, the evangelizing, the invasion of poor countries for the purpose of buying converts, if they would just LEAVE FOLKS ALONE!, then I would have relatively few objections to the beast. But it’s a meme that needs to do this to survive, so there’s little hope of cessation. At best, we have periods where it gets driven back into the closet. This doesn’t appear to be one of them, not in U.S., not this soon after the trauma of 9/11 and the ascension of the neo-con/Christian nationalist presence. Which is why the second thing on my list is GET THE RELIGION OUT OF GOVERNMENT. If this movement hadn’t gained so much political power and influence in the last decade (not to mention getting fat off those ‘faith based initiative’ dollars), the ‘secularists’ as you call us, would probably be less inclined to go after them. Sadly, if you take it to its logical conclusion, it’s a ‘kill or be killed’ philosophy as we all get crowded together on the planet. I’m inclined to find a really big spaceship and load it with all those stuck on their iron-age Abrahamic ideals and let them fight it out in a galaxy far, far away.
Well, you should. Actually, not to him because he just died, but listen to his compatriots. It’s all the same game, doesn’t matter who the player is.
This topic brings again to my mind how one interprets religion and behaves accordingly is really about individual psychology and reaction to life experience. Some people are quite comfortable with cherry-picking from religious doctrines the parts that make sense to them (or making up their own) and can live contentedly and peacefully with their neighbors who disagree. Others can’t, they’re rigid literalists who can’t bear that others think and behave in a manner that they dislike. Like gay people getting married. It is beyond me why people find someone else’s personal business so threatening. They point to a place in the bible to justify its ‘wrongness’, but have too little self-awareness to understand that it’s their own emotional response (fear, hatred, whatever) that drives their reactions.
I think you’re misinterpreting the approach of non-theists and atheists. I, for one, don’t care if you believe in little green men. Now I may call you a magical thinker, but I’ll defend your right to think magically. But if you’re a moderate believer in little green men and are hiding your head in the sand, denying the hard truth that certain rigid believers in little green men are willing to imprison (or worse) those who don’t believe in them as well, then I’ve got a problem with you, sure. As Harris, Dawkins and Dennett (among others) have noted, the problem is that moderate Christians don’t condemn the ideas that hardcore evangelicals spout in this country. Ideas not far removed from totalitarianism, when you hear some of them promoting biblical law as the law of the land. Everyone wants to jump on the Christian bandwagon but, when they do so without speaking out against its more facist adherents, the moderates are holding up a theology with an intolerant and destructive side no different from that of fundamentalist Islam. If moderate Christians would get some cojones and start seriously speaking out against the Pat Robertsons and James Dobsons, then many of us secularists would get off their backs. But they don’t. I’ll offer the reason why is that they can’t. Because that intolerant, hideous stuff can be justified by Bible quotes, as well.
You want me only to hold the people accountable instead of the doctrine? I agree that they should stand trial for their crimes, but I also contend that the doctrine itself has content which informs and inflames the people and we should condemn it for that. IMO, as long as these exclusivistic religions are held up as ‘truths’, they will do humanity more harm than good.