The worst thing about most militant atheists I've met, is that they're such godforsaken bores. . . .

Except that, when one has a certain gene, or combination of genes, it's not destiny.

Alcoholism runs in my family, but none of my siblings are alcoholics, because we don't drink.
(Or, we don't express alcoholism, if you prefer).

The choices we make, matter.

When "the Gods" are angry with you, whatchagonna do ?

Let's hope the boxer shorts, unlike the towel, were at least washed.

Once you know about SLC6A4, there is at least the potential to do something about the problem.

In stark contrast to "The Gods are angry."

Jeff:

You are so, so wrong in so many ways. Ever listen to the words of "Amazing Grace"?

Finding out about SLC64A is an example of amazing grace.

My brother-in-law is a Thalidomide baby - no legs and one arm. I attended his wedding as he went down the aisle on a skateboard.

We are all born broken. It is how we deal with it that matters.

I've never met a militant atheist. Where do you find them?

Peter:

Let's say someone determines the gene underlying cystic fibrosis. And someone else determines how to deliver a gene splice to fix the problem.

Now compare that with chanting "The Gods' must be angry."

The articles assertion is that there is nothing to tell between the two.

Do all the latter, and none of the former, and cystic fibrosis sufferers will continue to live short, miserable lives to the end of time.

Do enough of the latter, and CF will become a legend of times past like, well, like polio.

To me, that is pretty darn big difference.

Peter:

Let's say someone determines the gene underlying cystic fibrosis. And someone else determines how to deliver a gene splice to fix the problem.

Now compare that with chanting "The Gods' must be angry."

The articles assertion is that there is nothing to tell between the two.

Do all the latter, and none of the former, and cystic fibrosis sufferers will continue to live short, miserable lives to the end of time.

Do enough of the latter, and CF will become a legend of times past like, well, like polio.

To me, that is pretty darn big difference.

The author has it wrong when he says

"But there is not, if you think about it, that much difference between saying "The gods are angry" and saying "He has the gene for anger." Both are ways of attributing a matter of personal agency to some fateful and mysterious impersonal power."

By saying "he has the gene for anger", we are not attributing personal agency, but recognizing that the source of anger is non-personal. That is precisely the difference between the secular and religious worldviews. The secular worldview rejects personal agency in everything but actual persons.

If you know that you have the anger gene, the secular worldview saves you from having to ask "what did I do to deserve this?" It is both the strength and weakness of secularism. A strength in that you don't have to look for personal motives or rationales in phenomena which have no personal component, such as weather, disease, blind fate, etc. However, the benefit of religion is, I believe, that by personalizing such phenomena, it gives the believer an avenue to feel somewhat empowered to affect it, through supplication to the personal source of the phenomena.

Jeff:

When were you last at Mass or a Protestant service? Do you really imagine them sitting in terror (drums beating ominously) chanting "The Gods are angry."

Your post, despite hyperbole, left me with the impression that you believe science can solve all our problems and that religion is feel-good mumbo-jumbo that can deliver a short-term psychological fix at best. I allow completely that, if you want to cure CF in the general population, science, not religion, is the way to go. But that is not what I took from your post.

Jeff, given the number of posts and debates we have had in the past months, isn't it about time you started reading a little theology, if only to challenge and defeat us?

No major religion says "The gods are angry". To assert so is purile. If you can't meaningfully discuss theological or ontological questions of punishment vs fortune, theism vs atheism, good vs evil, faith vs works, etc., you don't belong here.

If we're going to be flippant about why bad things happen, well ok..

Taoism - S[tuff] happens.
Atheism - S[tuff] happens for no apparent reason.
Existentialism - What is s[tuff] anyway?
Catholicism - If s[tuff] happened you deserved it.
Hedonism - I only want good s[tuff].
Paganism - Lots of different s[tuff] happens.
Calvinism - That s[tuff] was inevitable.
Evangelicals - Let me tell you about this guy who can clean the s[tuff] off you.
Judaism - So why does s[tuff] always happen to us?

Gideon:

Priceless. Thanks.

Peter, Gideon:

Re-read the last two sentences of the article.

Good.

Re-re-read them.

It should now be clear it was the author--not I--who offered up the puerile "The gods are angry." And it was the author who asserted there is essentially no difference between that and identifying an anger gene (simplistic though that is).

It is not hyperbole to counter that chanting "The gods are angry" will not cure a material problem, but that finding the material causes for it may. If for no other reason than results matter.

Imagine if Dr. Saulk chanted instead of investigated.

I haven't been to church in years. Why? I felt as out of place as a cat at a dog show.

And I do read theology. While I don't participate in the purely religious discussions here, I often follow Orrin's links.

All of which make me feel like a pig staring at a wristwatch: all interest and no comprehension.

Jeff:

"All of which make me feel like a pig staring at a wristwatch: all interest and no comprehension."

Ok, now I finally understand why you evolutionists reject the argument from design.

I take back the crack about your reading with an apology. But you must admit you delight in throwing the medieval church or even paganism at us as the basis of what you claim modern religionists must believe or are never far from, particularly on tolerance. Apart from your admiration for a kind of civic stoicism, you have nothing good and much bad to say about faith. You don't see too many of us disavowing scientific progress or trying to insist the modern evolutionist is pegged forever in the beliefs of the 1850's. (Uncle chimp.)

Peter:

I do that because the difference between then and now is strongly secular government, which many here regularly bash.

And I do believe that universalist, salvationist creeds have a strong tendency towards intolerance. Catholicism is, as we speak, intolerant. For a voluntary religious association, that is fine. Many, if not most, voluntary associations similarly qualify as intolerant.

The problem is when one of those creeds is in a position to impose its beliefs on the rest of us. Would you care to live under a Judge Moore government?

Besides, religious intolerance has been on display here. Arelgionists have been accused of having insufficient imagination, incapable of understanding the precepts of our Republic, incapable of being truthful in court, knee-jerk statists, and morally witless free-riders. In the bargain, we deserve disenfranchisement, and are incapable of conceiving of any kind of rigorous moral code.

I don't recall having said anything even remotely that bad about religionists per se Rather, I am unreservedly critical about the combination of universalist, salvationist belief unhindered by doubt and government power.

Jeff:

The problem, of course, is that you wish to disavow religion but be credited with all the benefits of belief. Morality is nothing more than intolerance.

Jeff:

But you are incapable of conceiving of any kind of rigorous moral code. In fact, aren't you against them?

Peter:

The point isn't that he can't conceive of one, but that it is necessarily only his conception. There is no basis, barring God, for a universal moral code. It's an ancient and unsolved philosophical quandry for the areligious.

Science is the reduction of natural phenomena to mathematical formulae, the usefulness of those formulas (notice I said usefulness not truth) being determined by their predictive power. Religion is the expansion of phenomena to myths that describe the truth of the human condition.

Trying to cure disease with religion is like trying to dig a hole with a sieve, and trying to use science to determine the good is like mooring a boat with a balsa wood anchor.

You have to use the right tool for the job.

Jeff/Orrin:

I was using "you" in the plural.

I don't recall God being mentioned anywhere in the Golden Rule.

And there is a basis for a universal moral code absent God--that mode of conduct that creates the most fit societies. It does so because it best conforms to human nature.

See the Golden Rule, above. See also the Declaration of Independence.

Don't start on the Creator thing. The "what" end of it, universally applied, is sufficient justification in and of itself.

Gideon:

In case you forgot, Pat Robertson claimed the 9/11 attacks were the result of an angry God.

Jeff:

What makes a society "the most fit"?

Jeff:

God need not mention Himself since He's the speaker ordering you.

Of course, the Declaration does specifically mention God, as it must.

Jeff:

Ok, I understand your general principles, but let's get specific. How do the most fit societies handle divorce? And are they fit because they handle divorce that way or do they handle divorce that way because they are fit?

The reasons I (and perhaps Jeff) cite the past performance of the Church and the churches are 2:

1. Religionists claim universal validity, so what they did in the past matters, in a way that what French kings did in the 15th century does not matter to what French presidents do in 2003.

2. The universal truths that the religionists teach change constantly. I keep asking, which version of morality am I supposed to adhere to? By what criteria do I choose among them?

No one here has ever attempted to answer that one.

I don't know how divorce got into it, but what is the universal truth about divorce? What brand of religion has the skinny on that?

Harry:

The validity doesn't waver, our capacity and willingness to adhere to it does. Divorce is wrong, but our society is weak.

OJ:

For you it must. For others it need not. Either way the underlying truth of the axiomatic assertion remains unchanged. As it must, since for it to be self-evident, it can't rest on one's particular notion of the Creator.

If the what doesn't work on its own, no amount of why is going to fix it.

Peter:

Societal fitness is a net term.

Judd:

Results. Nearly no matter the criteria, our society is more fit than any other. However, depending upon how seriously you take Christ's teachings, European society, which focuses more on providing for the poorest, and narrowing income distribution, may be more fit.

Ooops. I meant to say more moral. Unfortunately, their fitness is rather lagging, isn't it?

As for the rest, Harry, as is typically the case, said it better than I.

Harry:

Your indictment of religionism is completely accurate.

Too bad you also just described all mankind.

Jeff:

The very terms ("fitness", "results") are appeals to an impartial arbiter.

Fitness is a good proxy for moral, but only a proxy. A society can't be normatively ethical because it can't be impartial.

This is why, even in the most fit societies, you still get laments about the "whats" not truly working at all, much less working on their own.

I'll have to look up that reference to Christ teaching "narrowing income distribution".

All mankind doesn't claim the right to tell other people how to behave, without explanation or justification.

Religion does. Whether the orders are wise and moral or not, to be universal, they have to be consistent.

They are not.

Divorce, for example. If it's wrong, what's the difference between a divorce and an annulment?

Christianity has had annulments all along and has never taught they were immoral.

It isn't that I reject religion out of hand. It does not do what it claims to do. It's like buying a carton of milk and not finding any milk in it.

A CASUAL POLL AND TECHNICAL QUERY- OFF TOPIC

I have refrained from entering my email address, for fear of those spam bots.

However, I would hate to miss out on some bit of enlightenment. Not that I suspect anyone with such a desire would refrain from posting here.

Have you folks who post your addresses experienced a correlating increase in spam to those mailboxes?

Or does it seem safe?

Thanks

Harry:

But you don't buy it--you get the milk for free and then bitch about the occassional sour glass.

Jeff:

No, that's exactly the point. Either we're Created and have dignity and "rights" or else you're right and we can pretty much do anything we want.

Judd:

Very little spam, but I've made quite a few new Nigerian friends.

Jeff:

I'm sorry, but if fitness is "net", how can it underpin a moral code of individual behaviour? Does this mean abortion or divorce are ok (or nobody's concern) until they reach a certain level of frequency, at which point they become morally offensive?

Harry:

You keep saying no-one ever deals with the issue of inconsistencies or changes in perceptions of 'absolute" truth, but that is not so. About two months ago we had a long thread about how, just because there was an Absolute, it doesn't mean human perceptions of It are perfect or eternal. I quoted Neuhaus at you, if I recall.(and you ducked!) Many believe G-d reveals Himself through history (most Christians and Jews, obviously) and no-one believes humans are omniscient, no matter how pious.

Also, moral transgressions are not necessarily universal. Jews don't worry about Christians eating cheeseburgers and I believe Catholics don't generally worry about the souls of two divorcing atheists who had been married in Las Vegas City Hall.

The point is that religious rules of morality don't exist in splendid isolation, ready to be deconstructed by pouncing secularists. Some basic ones do, of course, like the Ten Commandments Jeff is all against putting in public places lest it give Pat Robertson an opening make his move and enslave us all.

Harry:

But, religionists DO consistently provide explanations and justifications for their moralizing! It's those (the inconsistent explanations) which you protest!

Otherwise, you're right. Religion doesn't do what it claims to do. Even its mere utility probably damns it.

Milk purports only to nourish, but many milk peddlers feel compelled to push a value-added product-- e.g. civil religionism.

And lots of empty cartons.

A society's "fitness", and its "morality", are two entirely different things.

A society of pacifists may be highly moral, but are unlikely to be found fit.

OJ:

We can't do pretty much what we want. Notably, but not to change the subject, your statement indicates why you would never swallow Evolutionary Theory even if you were to be supplied with an event-by-event video of it since the dawn of time.

Some forms of societal organization are "more fit" than others, because they are a better fit with human nature.

I happen to think human nature is just as much a product of evolution as binocular vision, bipedal motion, or the opposable thumb. I could be wrong.

So could you.

However, regardless of the winner in that particular pissing match, there sits human nature, the integration of which with the "what" of the Declaration of Independence makes all protestations of why pointless. We have "rights" because the form of social organization that includes those rights has a pretty good track record, when push comes to shove, of walloping societies that don't include those rights.

Unattractively utilitarian though that may be, if the reverse were true, then we wouldn't have dignity and rights, would we?

Judd:

The impartial arbiters are economic, civil, and military.

According to Christ: "Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee, turn thou not away." "It thou wilt be perfect, go and sell what thou hast, and give to the poor." Making a truly Christian society one in which no one owed or owned anything, and which would give any portion of its wealth to any individual or organization asking for it.

That seems to give all the Biblical leverage any European could want for morally elevating their society above ours. In a moral sense, it is--I'm not being the least sarcastic here--their approach is such a fitness loser.

Never mind the problem of reconciling timeless absolutes that aren't, there is the problem of distinguishing among simultaneously competing sets of timeless absolutes

Peter:

Your question regarding fitness and morality is too broad to answer here, and in any event, beyond my decidedly meager capabilities.

However, it seems to depend on the act in question. Even one murder violates our sense of morality--no matter our religious background. Tolerance for, say, dancing, varies rather more widely. Some would ban it outright. Others tolerate it to the extent it doesn't become an activity excluding all others.

Many people believe the Bible inerrant and absolutely, literally, correct. You, equally religious, don't. Well, maybe you do, but rather it is our interpretations that suffer from human failings. Yet religion is essential for a viable moral code, something which areligionists are singularly incapable of supporting.

Okay, take the latter as stipulated. Just don't expect me to hang my head in shame for being unable to do what religion itself has done no more successfully.

You have caricatured my position on the Ten Commandments in public places beyond recognition. On the one hand, I have asked whether you would prefer to live in a society run by Judge Moore, which has nothing to do with the Commandments. On the other, I have merely noted the inherent offensiveness of his demagogic insistence on their placement. Since believers need no reminding, the only possible purpose could be a stick in non-believers' collective eye.

Jeff:

I don't know Judge Moore and couldn't answer. For all I know, he could be a dangerous demagogue, but I am not the slightest bit worried that there would be any correlation between the placing of the Ten Commandments in a court and the protection of civil lberties and the separation of church and state.

I have the sense that you have great difficulty shaking the notion that, however sound or admirable a given religious person might be, he or she is attached by an umbilical cord to something dark and menacing that is an imminent tidal wave he/she will prove incapable of resisitng when push comes to shove. You remind me of the old style liberals who opposed censorship on the grounds that Shakespeare and the Bible were threatened (?) but saw no danger that porn would get out of hand.

Also, while I know that you personally are a conservative individualist committed to freedom, you often argue like a collectivist. Everything--evolution, fitness, morality, consensus etc.-- is "net". You seem more focussed on society at large and how it competes with other societies, than what a given moral dilemna means to this or that individual. That is fair ball and important to us all, especially these days, but it is not the whole story. Unless you give equal time to tackling head-on issues of personal morality, emotional health and security, family and what used to be known as the "good life", you run the risk of ending up with a stong, happy society made up of unhappy individuals--the traditional conservative criticism of progressive utopianism. I practice a lot of family law and I can assure you that there are many miserable people out there hopelessly puzzled about why the gospel according to Oprah brought them such pain and sorrow.

Jeff, human affairs do not run on rational, scientific, logical lines. When we try to make them do so entirely, misery results, especially for our children. Individual freedom is a blessed thing, but we shouldn't ever forget most of us know better what is good for those around us than for ourselves.

Jeff:

You of course fail to extend your own theory. The secularized nations of Europe are dying--demonstrating secularism to be unfit.

Meanwhile, you're right, I'm no fan of Evolutionary Psychology, but neither are you. What you argue instead is Psuchological Evolutionism--that society, economies, languages, etc. evolve because of us. That I do agree with.

Jeff:

Religion is NOT essential for a viable moral code. God is. That's what most religionists get wrong, and that's what you're (correctly) reacting to.

OJ:

They are demonstrating socialism is unfit.

What do you think would happen if they tossed the welfare state overboard and adopted a more laissez faire economic and societal model like ours?

I am not a fan of all proponents of Evolutionary Psychology, but I am unable to conclude evolution acts on anatomy will simultaneously leaving the brain untouched. Since I believe in Evolutionary Theory, than I have no problem concluding human nature is a result of the broad processes of Evolution, even if the details shall be forever beyond our ken.

And, no, you don't agree, because you either caricature the concept, are being ironic, or don't understand it. How can I tell? Your phrase "...evolve because of us..." would make as much sense with "despite." However, "because" implies planner and plan. Of which there is none.

Peter:
It isn't the placement of the 10 Commandments per se that is the problem. Rather, it is the motivation. Which, as I have noted, is very suspect.

And, by the way, he is a demogogue, and very much hopes to impose the tyranny of the Bible Belt majority upon the rest of us.

In talking about evolution, or societal fitness, the only meaningful consideration is net fitness--they happen across populations. It isn't collectivism, it is statistics.

That doesn't mean I ignore the individual. Quite the contrary--I assert that the greatest societal fitness comes from not collectivising individual decisions. Religionists railing against secularism explicitly desire to collectivise personal decisions, despite laboring under a moral rubric historically demonstrated to be unable to shoulder such a burden--the point I believe Harry to be making.

So, no, I don't ignore the moral dilemmas individuals face. Often I have maintained that it is with the individual, not some externally imposed morality, where the decision should lie.

Interestingly, OJ's comments that societies have the right, even the obligation, to persecute outliers leads to some, uh, interesting results: the more collective--i.e., sectarian--moral imposition becomes, the more outliers there are, giving the imposers ever more justification for persecution.

The religious totalitarianism of the Inquisition comes immediately to mind.

Peter, you miss the point. Unless you are arguing that today's religionists are nearer correct than those of the past -- and in that you would be arguing against Orrin -- then there is no reason to accept today's strictures, whether moral against murder or ritual against eating lobsters.

I am among the unchosen. God does not speak to me directly. Therefore, I have two choices: trust my own brain, or take direction from somebody else.

My predilection is to trust myself, but I'm open to the possibility of taking direction.

But the director has to show me why his directions are superior.

The argument is that they came from God and are, by definition, superior. But God does not change, while the directions do.

Therefore, which of the many directions do I choose among? I'm right back depending on my own self.

Not a problem for me, but I understand how it bothers people with less overweening self-confidence than mine.

By the way, the Catholicism I was raised in was just as down on divorce among non-Catholics as among Catholics. Maybe it's changed since I left the Church.

That's the problem with religion. You cannot pin it down.

Harry:

No, you leave yourself bound to take orders from the State and ever more orders as morality fades. Thus your "freedom" from God leads to less personal freedom.

We are always bound to take orders from the State, regardless of whether or not God exists.

It is true that said orders multiply, as morality, or at least fear of Hellfire, fades; It's not clear that such a situation leads to LESS personal freedom, just different areas of freedom.
Some are willing to make that trade.

Of course they are--freedom is rather an irksome burden.

OJ:

You dodged Harry's point entirely.

Judd:

You have a point. However, unless one is a Deist, a conviction that competes with Harry's and my outlook for getting short shrift around here, it seems the only path to God is through religion.

Quite the conundrum.

Jeff:

His point was that he is free to undertake any action he sees fit because he doesn't believe in a morality beyond his own opinion--you aver something similar, no? But, of course, all we end up with under the system you two wish is a stifling regulatory regime that substitutes government decision making for traditional morality. You get France. Fortunately y'all are a distinct minority here so, though we've slipped, we're nowhere near that far towards Statism.

Harry:

OK, but you have neighbours. If they are all as enlightened as you, they trust their own brains as well, and they no more trust yours than you trust theirs. You may be able to negotiate some functional arrangements based upon self-interest, but you may not. How do any principles of common ground arise? You don't recognize the authority of religion. They don't recognize history or the wisdom of ancestors and they don't give a whit about fitness. You want freedom and choice, they want compassion and equality. You are a bunch of atoms banging around with barely enough common ground to agree on traffic control, never mind morality. So what happens?

Orrin's answer is the correct one. The State intervenes and makes the rules, but of course with a benevolent smile on its face and a lot of nice words about freedom.

Jeff:

"We have "rights" because the form of social organization that includes those rights has a pretty good track record, when push comes to shove, of walloping societies that don't include those rights."

Did you have trouble walloping societies back in the dark days when religion was a much stronger force than today? Do you believe America is becoming stronger as the influence of religion wanes and The Supreme Court finds more and more individual rights?

OJ:

Okay, you didn't dodge it, you merely completely misunderstood it.

So while I think Harry made the point so well I could only dull it through reiteration, I'll try anyway.

Religiously based moral codes are both incomplete and incorrect, and change over time. As well, religious morality is always found on both sides of any significant moral issue.

For those to whom God decides not to speak, these rather profound shortcomings require a decision. On the one hand, blindly obeying some group of men who claim that link or claim some special expertise in interpreting God's will. On the other, forming one's own conclusions on the matter at hand. Okay, in truth that is simplistic. Not a great number of people follow sectarian guidance blindly--certainly OJ is no examplar--hence nearly all of us use our innate moral compasses to, at the very least, modify sectarian guidance.

Outliers, such as Harry and I, find religiously based moral guidance to be so historically compromised, and so often on both sides of a question, as to be of no help whatsoever. Fundamentally, though, we just do more of what you yourself do.

But to go from there to your Statist refrain illuminates your inability to imagine an alternative to religiously imposed morality.

You believe there can be no morality without God, and therefore (circular logic alert) there must be a God for morality to exist.

Unfortunately, by confining yourself within that very small circle, you have utterly excluded absolutely any possibility that our morality, messy though it may be, is the result of the same processes that provided our facility with language and tools, or unfortunate anatomical tendency towards hemorrhoids. And just as innate. Having evolved as social beings we, except for the pathological among us, are no more capable of doing anything we want than an ant is of being alone.

An article here about a month ago noted that certain basic moral tenets are invariant across all known cultures and religions. You invoke a universal God as the reason, I invoke a witless, messy, directionless process instead. Now I think that, based on the evidence, morality looks far more likely to be the result of shambolic Evolution than anything remotely approaching intelligent design. But that could be a matter of taste.

The point here being that asserting the alternative to giving up my mind to a religious bureaucracy is to instead rely on the state variant--a classic example of distinction without difference--is a false dichotomy. And your continually posing it doesn't make it less so.

So Harry in no way claims to be able to take any action he wants; rather, he trusts his innate morality far more than an externally imposed source. If there is an outlook more intolerant of statism, or resistant to demagogically incited evil, then I have yet to hear it. And pledging fealty to a priesthood doesn't even come close.

What is more, your outlook blinds you to other causes of French-style statism that have nothing to do with individualistic outlooks such as Harry's and mine. And, ironically, might very well have to do with paying rather closer attention to some of Christ's teachings than a stronger concern for societal fitness might find prudent.

Harry--profound apologies if I mangled your intent.

Peter:

I have neighbors, all of whom undoubtedly find themselves as enlightened as I do. Some are Catholic, others Protestant, some Jewish. If they found each others' religious beliefs equally trustworthy, there would be no distinction among them; they certainly don't recognize the authority of the others' religions.

Under such conditions, completely absent the likes of Harry and me and not the tiniest bit hypothetical, how do you resolve all the issues you raised? Making Harry and I disappear resolves nothing. Resolution requires wiping out all religious viewpoints but one, and handing over all moral decisions to the remaining religious bureaucracy.

Please forgive me if I find that prospect less than completely inviting.

Regarding societal fitness: No one here, so far as I can tell, has addressed the point I raised. Your reply, while interesting, isn't germane to it.

But it does deserve a response. Admission: while, compared to most, reasonably well versed in the Constitution's contents, I have no legal background. Therefore, my response is based on civil religion alone.

To me, the 1st Amendment, in particular, is impossible to understand without an inherent privacy right. Griswold, 1965, is the perfect example why that is so. So, I find that right indispensable to any coherent concept of freedom. As for the other individual rights of which you speak, I am insufficiently familiar with them to draw a conclusion.

Jeff:

Obviously so long as you conform to Judeo-Christian morality there's no problem (God is speaking to you through what your upbringing, neighbors, society, etc. demand of you as a condition of membership in our culture). The question is whether it is in the long-term interest of Judeo-Christians to allow parasites to flourish on the body of society. Can some stasis be produced or is the condition eventually fatal? The rest of the West suggests the condition needs to be treated or te patient lost.

One thing I would think is worth your consideration is the very circular logic of which you quite rightly speak. You often insist that you are a moral person. Excellent. But, as you note, morality requires God. Is not your insistence on morality an intimation of your ultimate faith that there is a God, that how you behave matters and that behavior is judged?

Jeff:

But your Protestant, Catholic and Jewish neigbours all share a common underlying sense of basic morality, adhere to the same general moral precepts, believe that humans are here for a purpose that transcends their pleasure, believe in the existence of good and evil, share similar notions on the sanctity of the family and take the same approach to considering moral dilemmas. That is one heck of giant leap in building a modern resiliant, cohesive society. The fact that they have theological incompatibilities is minor, private and easily managed through tolerance, humility, admiration, discretion and respect.

OJ:

You must not be reading at all closely what I write, or even the articles you post here. Some moral sense is innate to humanity, absent any particular conception of God. And, to the extent Evolution actually happened, independent of God at all.

Hence my insistence that morality is grounded in our common humanity and evolutionary heritage (how in the heck did you conclude otherwise about what I have written here?), not any sectarian derivation thereof.

Further, you conveniently ignore all evidence contrary to your position. For one, the existence of a highly religious, statist society.

Argentina, perhaps?

The rest of the West suggests that religion is irrelevant. Just as many religious people are statists as not. And some of Christ's most attractive teachings are far more consistent with the Europe you insist is dying than the relentlessly competitive US which is thriving. Which you also fail to note.

The US is facing a health care crisis of mammoth proportions (causing at least $1,000/vehicle Big-3 cost disadvantage against foreign automakers) that threatens to knee-cap our economy. You should spend more time using your impressive analytical skills in demonstrating the causes and potential solutions to that crisis, and far less time demonizing people who think differently than you.

Because no matter how correct you are about the latter, the former is going to strike first.

Peter:

You also seem to fail to take on board a central precept of my argument, and the evidence underlying it. All humans, psychopaths aside, share an innate moral sense, the gift of our evolution as social animals. So saying that religious sects share a common underlying morality follows simply from observing that all religionists are human. As are, I might add for those here who might find it surprising, areligionists.

Yet despite the underlying morality, sectarian belief has a singular talent for magnifying theological incompatibilities into contraventions of the underlying morality they all share.

Note how quickly religionists start questioning whether those who think differently about certain things should be allowed to survive. Keep in mind that thought, not action, is the crime here.

If that is what passes for morality, then I am happily shot of it.

Jeff:

God bushwhacks the path to us, not the other way around. No religion, no conundrum.

http://www.mckenziestudycenter.org/theology/articles/relig.html

The cultural upheavals of the last century were a symptom of a generation's loss of faith and character-- yet, at the same time, they were a keening lament over that loss, and what it entails for the earth. We are creatures built for moral perfection. Every fiber longs for it.

http://www.rationalpi.com/theshelter/

I live in a neighborhood with a lot of Buddhists. Their views about morality in general, the source of morality, family organization and behavior are quite a bit different from those of Christians and Jews.

They are quite compatible with my Christian neighbors, though; more compatible with them than the Christians are with the Buddhists, in fact, since a large fraction of the Christians despise the Buddhists, while I have yet to meet a Buddhist who despises Christians for their beliefs. (This results in some very nasty behavior, eg, in the schools.)

As for fitness, Buddhist societies seem very fit.

I do not agree that there are any universal moral constants across civilizations. Certainly most of the Ten Commandments would be meaningless to an unconverted Polynesian.

But if we can retreat a step from the cosmic questions, somebody answer me the practical, quotidian, humdrum question: Among all the competing and antagonistic preachers of morality, by what system do I select among them?

I notice that no one has attempted to explain to me why divorce is immoral but annulment is not.

Or, if annulment is, then what organization teaches correct morality? I believe that all Christian sects accept annulment, despite the very clear order not to put asunder that which God has joined together.

Harry:

Jesus did not forbid divorce. He explained it.

Jeff:

Which of Christ's teaching suggests the sick or poor be cared for by the State rather than their family, church, & neighbors?

Harry:

So far as I know, and a recent article here substantiated, prohibitions against murder, theft, incest, and, if memory serves, rape are universal. References to graven images and coveting are rather less common..

OJ:

I don't know, I'm not the Biblical expert here. Besides, my point still stands that it appears the Europeans have, in their minds anyway, chosen Christian charity over cutthroat competition. As Michael mentioned above, opting for morality is does not necessarily mean opting for fitness.

But never mind that.

What I am dying to hear is the answer to the quotidian question Harry has repeatedly asked. Or why one should trust as a moral arbiter an organization that manages to put annulment and divorce on opposite sides of the good-bad fence.

Jeff:

I'm equally dubious about them, but from wat I understand, annulment proceeds from the fact that the marriage in question was never sacramental as opposed to divorce which is based on one or both parties wanting out of a true marriage.