For the philosophers (read every word, trust me)

[fisherofmen]

A science professor begins his school year with a lecture to the students, 'Let me explain the problem with religion.' The atheist professor of philosophy pauses before his class and then asks one of his new students to stand.
'You're a Christian, aren't you, son?'

'Yes sir,' the student says.

'So you believe in God?'

'Absolutely.'
'Is God good?'

'Sure! God's good.'

'Is God all-powerful? Can God do anything?'
'Yes.'

'Are you good or evil?'

'The Bible says I'm evil.'
The professor grins knowingly. 'Aha! The Bible!' He considers for a moment. 'Here's one for you. Let's say there's a sick person over here and you can cure him. You can do it. Would you help him? Would you try?'
'Yes sir, I would.'

'So you're good...!'

'I wouldn't say that.'
'But why not say that? You'd help a sick and maimed person if you could. Most of us would if we could. But God doesn't.'

The student does not answer, so the professor continues. 'He doesn't, does he? My brother was a Christian who died of cancer, even though he prayed to Jesus to heal him. How is this Jesus good? Hmmm? Can you answer that one?'
The student remains silent.

'No, you can't, can you?' the professor says. He takes a sip of water from a glass on his desk to give the student time to relax.

'Let's start again, young fella. Is God good?'

'Er...yes,' the student says.

'Is Satan good?'

The student doesn't hesitate on this one. 'No.'

'Then where does Satan come from?'

The student falters. 'From God'
'That's right. God made Satan, didn't he? Tell me, son. Is there evil in this world?'

'Yes, sir.'

'Evil's everywhere, isn't it? And God did make everything, correct?'
'Yes.'

'So who created evil?' The professor continued, 'If God created everything, then God created evil, since evil exists, and according to the principle that our works define who we are, then God is evil.'
Again, the student has no answer. 'Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible things, do they exist in this world?'
The student squirms on his feet. 'Yes.'

'So who created them?'

The student does not answer again, so the professor repeats his question. 'Who created them?' There is still no answer. Suddenly the lecturer breaks away to pace in front of the classroom. The class is mesmerized. 'Tell me,' he continues onto another student. 'Do you believe in Jesus Christ, son?'
The student's voice betrays him and cracks. 'Yes, professor, I do.'
The old man stops pacing. 'Science says you have five senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Have you ever seen Jesus?'
'No sir. I've never seen Him.'

'Then tell us if you've ever heard your Jesus?'

'No, sir, I have not.'

'Have you ever felt your Jesus, tasted your Jesus or smelt your Jesus? Have you ever had any sensory perception of Jesus Christ, or God for that matter?'
'No, sir, I'm afraid I haven't.'

'Yet you still believe in him?'

'Yes.'

'According to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says your God doesn't exist. What do you say to that, son?'
'Nothing,' the student replies. 'I only have my faith.'

'Yes, faith,' the professor repeats. 'And that is the problem science has with God. There is no evidence, only faith.'
The student stands quietly for a moment, before asking a question of His own. 'Professor, is there such thing as heat?'
'Yes,' the professor replies. 'There's heat.'

'And is there such a thing as cold?'

'Yes, son, there's cold too.'

'No sir, there isn't.'
The professor turns to face the student, obviously interested. The room suddenly becomes very quiet. The student begins to explain. 'You can have lots of heat, even more heat, super-heat, mega-heat, unlimited heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat, but we don't have anything called 'cold'. We can hit up to 458 degrees below zero, which is no heat, but we can't go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold; otherwise we would be able to go colder than the lowest -458 degrees.'
'Every body or object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits energy, and heat is what makes a body or matter have or transmit energy. Absolute zero (-458 F) is the total absence of heat. You see, sir, cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat we can measure in thermal units because heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it.'
Silence across the room. A pen drops somewhere in the classroom, sounding like a hammer.

'What about darkness, professor. Is there such a thing as darkness?'

'Yes,' the professor replies without hesitation. 'What is night if it isn't darkness?'
'You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is not something; it is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light, but if you have no light constantly you have nothing and it's called darkness, isn't it? That's the meaning we use to define the word.'
'In reality, darkness isn't. If it were, you would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn't you?'
The professor begins to smile at the student in front of him. This will be a good semester. 'So what point are you making, young man?'
'Yes, professor. My point is, your philosophical premise is flawed to start with, and so your conclusion must also be flawed.'
The professor's face cannot hide his surprise this time. 'Flawed? Can you explain how?'
'You are working on the premise of duality,' the student explains. 'You argue that there is life and then there's death; a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, science can't even explain a thought.'
'It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life, just the absence of it.'
'Now tell me, professor. Do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?'
'If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, young man, yes, of course I do.'
'Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?'

The professor begins to shake his head, still smiling, as he realizes where the argument is going. A very good semester, indeed.
'Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you now not a scientist, but a preacher?'
The class is in uproar. The student remains silent until the commotion has subsided.
'To continue the point you were making earlier to the other student, let me give you an example of what I mean.'
The student looks around the room. 'Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the professor's brain?' The class breaks out into laughter.
'Is there anyone here who has ever heard the professor's brain, felt the professor's brain, touched or smelt the professor's brain? No one appears to have done so. So, according to the established rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science says that you have no brain, with all due respect, sir.'
'So if science says you have no brain, how can we trust your lectures, sir?'

Now the room is silent. The professor just stares at the student, his face unreadable.

Finally, after what seems an eternity, the old man answers. 'I guess you'll have to take them on faith.'

'Now, you accept that there is faith, and, in fact, faith exists with life,' the student continues. 'Now, sir, is there such a thing as evil?'
Now uncertain, the professor responds, 'Of course, there is. We see it everyday. It is in the daily example of man's inhumanity to man. It is in the multitude of crime and violence everywhere in the world. These manifestations are nothing else but evil.'
To this the student replied, 'Evil does not exist sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God's love present in his heart. It's like the cold that comes when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when there is no light.'
The professor sat down.

[Rathpig]

Does it apply to atheism as well? I would argue that this logic would not exclude secular ethics as something purely social in origin that has no objective meaning.

Atheism is merely a single stance on one specific socially-derived issue. It is not a comment of any other aspect of secular thought. Though there is a social element in all aspects of human culture, this is why all morality is subjective, the basis of secular ethics is utility. Religious ethics are based upon superstition of the supposed "will" of a god construct. Both are subjective, and both have some elements of utility; however the basis of secular ethics is derived from evidenced utility. That is a huge difference.


As to the often claim "universality" concepts of religion, this is never in practice the case. One can claim a universality of religious notion, but this fails in the worship of the specific concepts.

I brought the ancient Maya into the argument for that reason alone. This culture believed that both human self-sacrifice through blood-letting and human life sacrifice were central to an appeasement of the "gods" and continual existence. Of course this is not acceptable in modern social terms, so the social construct of Mayan theology can not be followed. If the Mayan religious viewpoint had any objective element this would be detrimental to human existence. Fortunately religion is merely a social construct.

People can escape their religious cultural indoctrination as history clearly shows. I have never stated that these constructs were total. Voluntary change has always been a rare occurrence even in the modern era. Where societal change has occurred throughout history this accompanied the religious change. I would content that this is even further evidence of the close tie of culture and religion.

The Romanization of "pagan" Europe which predated the spread of Christianity is directly related to the broadening of that specific religion. It was not a voluntary acceptance because the change involves hundreds of years of military and social conquest. "Pagan" Europe didn't merely wake up one day and decide to become "Christian" Europe.


Religions have to teach socio-cultural externality because otherwise they have to admit their own subjectivity. It is hard to be "the true religion" while giving credence to every other social construct as valid. This is why even in the universalist doctrines we see lip-service to acceptance rather than adherence.

Society dictates religion. This is a basic anthropological concept. "Proof" of the concept can be found in any university anthropology text.

[Jester]

Atheism is merely a single stance on one specific socially-derived issue. It is not a comment of any other aspect of secular thought. Though there is a social element in all aspects of human culture, this is why all morality is subjective, the basis of secular ethics is utility. Religious ethics are based upon superstition of the supposed "will" of a god construct. Both are subjective, and both have some elements of utility; however the basis of secular ethics is derived from evidenced utility. That is a huge difference.

I don't see all that much of a difference, personally. First, if we are assuming that social influences effect whether or not a person accepts religion, we are accepting by default that social influences affect whether or not a person rejects it. If we can look at someone in South Korea and say "you're only Christian because of your culture, can't we look at a person in North Korea, and say, "you're only Atheist because of your culture".
Personally, I'd omit the word "only" from both of these statements (but I'm not assuming you would have included them yourself, so that's more of a casual observation).

As for the idea that secular ethics are utilitarian and based on evidence, compared to superstitious beliefs of religion, I feel that a good look at the Nazis should make us reconsider that concept. Secular 'ethics' are often based on prejudice, greed, and other false assumptions. I would not conclude that they are based on evidenced reality until a clear and compelling means of separating the 'good' secular ethics from the 'bad' ones. Who sets that standard, and how does such a person/group do it?

For the record, utility is not an appropriate standard. Utility cannot be tested except by a subjects ability/efficiency in achieving a specific goal. Ethics are not concerned with ability and efficiency so much as selecting the correct goal to begin with. In fact, I would argue that they are entirely concerned with the selection of a goal by their nature.

As to the often claim "universality" concepts of religion, this is never in practice the case. One can claim a universality of religious notion, but this fails in the worship of the specific concepts.

I'm not sure that I understand what you're getting at here. Is this the argument that no person can practice a religion to perfection? If so, I'd agree with that, but point out that no one is perfect, and I know of no moral system, religious or secular, (beyond particularly outrageous proposals) which is practicable by a human being.

If the Mayan religious viewpoint had any objective element this would be detrimental to human existence. Fortunately religion is merely a social construct.

Certainly it was detrimental to the existences of those people who were killed. At least, this is the case as you and I see it. Were that religion actually true, those sacrificed would be given a great reward for their suffering, and come out ahead on the deal (at least, that's how I understand it - and it may as well be the case for purposes of this discussion). Assuming Christianity is true, then the things that people sacrifice to practice it are more than worth the cost. I'd personally say that I've already gotten back much more than I've sacrificed even if we're removing any promise of heaven from the discussion. Therefore, I don't see how this is a valid, or even all that relevant, argument.

People can escape their religious cultural indoctrination as history clearly shows. I have never stated that these constructs were total. Voluntary change has always been a rare occurrence even in the modern era. Where societal change has occurred throughout history this accompanied the religious change. I would content that this is even further evidence of the close tie of culture and religion.

Certainly, there is social influence on what people decide about religion. I don't think either or us are opposing that idea. I don't believe that this automatically infers that society is the source of all religious beliefs for all human history, however. If we are arguing that people sometimes believe things based on reasons other than rational ones, I would agree. The fact that this occurs, however, does not mean that such people are automatically wrong, however. It only means that we should not submit human opinion as evidence.

Religions have to teach socio-cultural externality because otherwise they have to admit their own subjectivity. It is hard to be "the true religion" while giving credence to every other social construct as valid. This is why even in the universalist doctrines we see lip-service to acceptance rather than adherence.

I continue to assert that all religions are comments on the objective nature of reality. Like a scientific theory, they can be correct or incorrect, but are never a matter of opinion. To call them subjective is, by definition, to call them a matter of opinion. They are not a preference in the way that driving on a particular side of the road, reading left-to-right, or other such cultural traditions are. If they were, there would be little reason for this debate to begin with. As such, it seems more rational to call them wrong than to call them subjective.

Society dictates religion. This is a basic anthropological concept. "Proof" of the concept can be found in any university anthropology text.

If this is the case, please share. Before I get your response, I'll write out a few of the ways in which I feel some might see proof in this, and offer my thoughts.

1. That people have a tendency to believe in the religion that they are exposed to from others.
This tendency exists, for certain. A tendency is not a certainty, however, which is what would be needed for society to dictate religion. Moreover, even establishing a certainty is not a proof that the religion is false, but merely establishes that human belief is not evidence.

2. By "society" I mean all people. While I accept that people have choice, religion can only exist as a communal concept and is therefore a product of society.
This argument overlooks the idea that religions are founded, influenced, and challenged by individuals. Each person within a religious group has his/her own take on the religion, and this is the only "religion" that actually exists. The idea of a communal religion that is somehow over all people is an abstract idea. It is an average of many real things, but it is not itself real. Such as the "average" Englishman. He is not actually a real person, but an imaginary concept. No idea can ever be called a purely social construct for this reason as well. Also, this idea (like others) ignores the fact that human beliefs are not automatically wrong.

3. People that claim the truths of religion are simply following what they've heard from others. You can say that this is not a social construct, but, whatever you want to call it, there's nothing of validity in religion.
It is clearly debatable that a given religion is not based on observable reality. Quite specifically, there are a specific set of observable events claimed by all religions. While many doubt the validity of such events, one must first establish that they did not occur before one can logically claim that these ideas are not based on observable reality.

[Rathpig]

can't we look at a person in North Korea, and say, "you're only Atheist because of your culture".

In this example you would be correct because the concept is the social norm. having an atheist view and being born in the U.S. "Bible Belt" would be a cultural anomaly.

I feel that a good look at the Nazis should make us reconsider that concept.

The German National Socialists (Nazis) were Christian.


So that this isn't an unwieldy book of a post, I am going to skip ahead to your three points. If I missed anything that you feel must be addressed please point it out.

1. That people have a tendency to believe in the religion that they are exposed to from others.
This tendency exists, for certain. A tendency is not a certainty, however, which is what would be needed for society to dictate religion. Moreover, even establishing a certainty is not a proof that the religion is false, but merely establishes that human belief is not evidence.

The social establishment of religious acceptance is not a given even though the social establishment of religion is a certainty. If a society doesn't establish religion then from whence does religion come?

All religion can be assume "false" because it makes extraordinary claims without evidence and often contrary to evidence. Remember that only mathematics deals with "proof". Science deals with probability. The likelihood of religion being probable approaches nil.

2. By "society" I mean all people. While I accept that people have choice, religion can only exist as a communal concept and is therefore a product of society.
This argument overlooks the idea that religions are founded, influenced, and challenged by individuals. Each person within a religious group has his/her own take on the religion, and this is the only "religion" that actually exists. The idea of a communal religion that is somehow over all people is an abstract idea. It is an average of many real things, but it is not itself real. Such as the "average" Englishman. He is not actually a real person, but an imaginary concept. No idea can ever be called a purely social construct for this reason as well. Also, this idea (like others) ignores the fact that human beliefs are not automatically wrong.

This is a meaningless rebuttal because it isn't contrary to my point. Of course culture and society are the domain of individuals. Yes, even religion can have the undue influence of individuals on the overall theology. However, religion does not exist as a collection of individual ideas. Religion is a social construct. it can only exist in the realm of a broader social agreement. If an individual doesn't follow the group tenets then that individual is not afforded the benefits of the religion.

An example would be the Christian concept of "salvation". If an individual rejects the group ideology that defines the term, then that individual forgoes the assumed benefit. You can be a "saved" Christian by your own individual idea of "salvation". It is a group construct.

I have no idea what you are trying to argue here since you falsely dismissed the concept of subjectivity, yet then embrace a highly subjective view. You are correct in your second idea that religion is subjective, but you are incorrect that it is an individual subjectivity. It is an inter-group subjectivity that conforms to basic social norms.

3. People that claim the truths of religion are simply following what they've heard from others. You can say that this is not a social construct, but, whatever you want to call it, there's nothing of validity in religion.
It is clearly debatable that a given religion is not based on observable reality. Quite specifically, there are a specific set of observable events claimed by all religions. While many doubt the validity of such events, one must first establish that they did not occur before one can logically claim that these ideas are not based on observable reality.

It is not in the least "debatable" that religion relates in any way to observable reality. This is simply unsupportable. You have this part of your argument completely skewed.

Religion must establish it's validity through objective evidence for any event to be considered valid. The burden of proof is on religion, and religion fails again and again. Nothing in the religious experience is either objective or realistic. Emotion is not a scientific proof. Emotion is not an observable reality.

You have presented what can only be described as poor support for your thesis. I have three counter points to explain why:

1). Show how religion is extra-cultural. This does not mean that "missionaries" don't spread religion to other cultures. What this means is that a particular religion is not culturally created or contained. You would have to show that someone with zero exposure to a specific religion became an adherent. (This is not possible, hence my point stands.)

2). Show how religion is valid in individual interpretation. I say I get to "go to Heaven" even though I am an atheist. That is my individual religious belief. Is that valid?

3). Show evidence for an "observable reality" that supports a religious belief. This evidence of course would have to be non-emotional and non-contradictory for any objective acceptance. "Faith" has no place in observable reality.

[Beto]

I don't see all that much of a difference, personally. First, if we are assuming that social influences effect whether or not a person accepts religion, we are accepting by default that social influences affect whether or not a person rejects it. If we can look at someone in South Korea and say "you're only Christian because of your culture, can't we look at a person in North Korea, and say, "you're only Atheist because of your culture".
Personally, I'd omit the word "only" from both of these statements (but I'm not assuming you would have included them yourself, so that's more of a casual observation).

Just because a nation's "government" refuses to allow public religious worship of any kind, how does that make the people atheist? "I can't pray in public", or "God? What's that?" doesn't make anyone an atheist, I think. One must know religion, and reject it, to be an atheist.

As for the idea that secular ethics are utilitarian and based on evidence, compared to superstitious beliefs of religion, I feel that a good look at the Nazis should make us reconsider that concept.

Would you elaborate on how you feel Nazi ideology relates to secular ethics?

Secular 'ethics' are often based on prejudice, greed, and other false assumptions.

Would you elaborate on this as well?

I would not conclude that they are based on evidenced reality until a clear and compelling means of separating the 'good' secular ethics from the 'bad' ones. Who sets that standard, and how does such a person/group do it?

Known "communist" nations stray a great deal from basic communist principles. And for whatever reason they're still referred to as "communist". Can you give me an example of a "bad" secular ethical principle?

[Jester]

[Rathpig]

Can we at least agree that there are those who have been convinced by such studies, and, by their understanding, religion is based on observable evidence?

In a word, No.


Because this has become a very unwieldy reply and response, let's simplify things and deal with this issue first. Most of the other points I have raised, and our basic disagreement, stem from this problem.

People may be "convinced", but that does not make it true.

No objective observable evidence has ever been offered that supports any religion. All religion is supported by cultural reference and emotion. of course many apologists have tried to equivocate these points, but their equivocation doesn't change facts.

Show me "observable evidence" of any religious validity.




And on a second minor point, the universality of religious experience is wholly unsupported. The Abrahamic religions, which are the bulk of current adherents, share an obvious similarity because they were plagiarized from the ancient Hebrew myths which have a basis is earlier cultures. But one can not compare the Aztec to the Hindu to the Shinto to the Muslim. None of these groups share any similarity in mythology that is not overlain by huge differences.


But let's solve the "observable evidence" problem. If you can't support this claim then most of your ideas about objectivity and extra-cultural influence are invalid.

[Jester]

[Rathpig]

[Jester]

[Jester]