One thing that always chaps my ass is the link between religion and morals. It just doesn't add up to me. Society is the source of morals. You cannot give religion credit for them because then you're failing to explain morals in atheism. Religion might have been necessary to harness civilization in old times where knowledge was scarce, but today it is no longer necessary.

Think about this: if all major religions have a standard base of morals, then we don't necessarily need to attribute those morals to the religions, but to society itself. Morals transcend religion. They are a part of human civilization. More than that, religions constantly adjust their acceptable moral code based on the trends of society - not the other way around. Follow any organized religion and you will see them making concession after concession as society evolves and human rights permeate our culture. Human rights are a secular conclusion - not religious.

My argument is that you do not get anything unique out of religion aside from the placebo effect associated with belief in some omnipresent being looking out for you.

I think the moral system found in religion did arise out of those of society. Religion was and is a way of organizing them. It was and is an inquiry into morals, so to speak.

True.

True.

Religion has done this even before Christianity. I think this is why I agree that society is the source of morals, but religion organizes them.

I agree with this too. This is why I'm okay with being an atheist.

But I'm also okay with religion, and I don't see anything wrong with it in and of itself--if you consider the function at its most fundamental level: an organized system of morals.

Religion should be used to teach people how to live ethically. Any belief attached to it is of no consequence to us atheists.

"God" as a concept is much greater than a "milk jug" as a concept. We need to look beyond the "placebo" and see what other functions lie beneath.

Where do you get your own inner strength?

I don't see the value in "organizing" morals, I suppose. It seems to be a fine way to use them for leverage. Morals should be intrinsic.

I don't know. It's the whole "humans like to organize" thing. It's done on the social level. It's not a free for all. Most of us organize other things on the social level, rather than the individual or family level: education, politics, commerce, etc. It makes sense to organize morals so that we're all on the same page. However, don't you find it interesting that religion has lost the clout it once had in this respect? Yet we still organize morals in other ways. Social expectation of behaviour is not going to go away.

Where has the organization of morals shifted to? Modern lawmaking? Corporate policies? The media?

Let me try to explain morality. There are social norms and market norms. Social norms are what we use when we determine how to treat our fellow man in every day life. Honesty (a word I am using to describe general quality of conduct) is comfortable to obtain in this situation because it is flexible, fluid and genial. (eg. You exchange favors, not cash. You help people because it triggers the "reward" center of your brain. You don't screw with people because all you gain is guilt.) Market norms are, as you can guess, strictly business, with exactly measured units of honesty (currency) with which you can make an accurate decision about how honest or dishonest you want to be. You're more likely to cheat in a market situation because you are able to determine exactly how much you are willing to get away with (on a subconscious level). You cannot mix these two norms in any given situation, as the standard of conduct often defaults to "market" norms. This is why, for example, you shouldn't lend money to your friends.

This is why corporate dishonesty and workplace theft cost businesses more annually than all other criminal offenses combined.

So to answer your question about the organization of morals...

The world has become a very dishonest place with commercialism taking over capitalism. The morals live in the hearts of families, friends, and communities. They are dead in business.

Aggressive, Intolerant Atheism: Is It Such a Bad Thing?
 

I know I've mentioned it before, but there's something really bizarre about the zealotry practiced by the crusaders for atheism. I disregard zealots cut from any cloth.

Ah, but not all zealots are created equal.

Apparently not. There are "righteous" zealots, and "misguided" zealots.

& then there's the rest of us.

Atheism has a cause
if unrelated to what it wants:
Believers can't perceive it.

My ears are burning!
http://ui13.gamespot.com/908/ss45hires_2.jpg

Although generally this is the kind of discussion I make an effort to keep out of, merely because I often find the anti-religion attitudes that tend to emerge in atheist threads (and I mean in general, on the internet, not necessarily at TFP), I do feel compelled to put in a brief something here.

Hal, I think your article does make some good points in that you state that in attempts to "convince" each other of the validity of their respective viewpoints, atheists and believers tend to talk past one another, because the same things are not necessarily valued and experienced as desirable, or even tangible, by both parties.

But it's for that reason that I tend to unilaterally disapprove of the entire process of trying to "convince" someone about religion or the absence thereof. As a Jew-- to say nothing of as a rabbi-- I have no business telling non-Jews what to think or believe or say. And as a responsible member of the Jewish people, it is my duty to be tolerant of the disagreements among our people in the name of shalom bayit b'Vet Yakov ("keeping peace within the House of Jacob") and for the sake of keeping my distance from lashon hara ("evil speech") and sinat chinam ("baseless hatred"). And as a responsible rabbi, only if I felt that a Jew were trying to live an observant life in participation with the Jewish community might I even consider confronting such an individual (in private, and politely) about beliefs or statements incompatible with Judaism.

My feeling as a Jew is that, while I might find it personally unfortunate for someone if they don't or won't experience God in their lives, it bears no relevance to me. So long as a person is good, and socially responsible, and not hurtful to others, their spiritual beliefs are a matter between them and God. If He has a problem with them, He can take it up with them Himself.

It would be arrogant at best of me to attempt to change the beliefs of a non-Jew, and probably pointless at best to attempt changing the beliefs of another Jew. There is a good reason Jews are forbidden to proselytize, and I think the same principle should apply to polemical debates, as well. My position is that of Reb Levi Yitzchak of Berditchev, who, when confronted by a certain Hasid, who was urging the Rebbe to swift and decisive action against a harmless and good-natured heretic, said: Loz leben (usually rendered "Live and let live," or "Let it be," but more accurately in tone-- if more loosely in literal translation-- "Get a life").

I tend to think that this position is worth embracing by other religions as well, and I know many Christians and Muslims who would certainly agree with what I have said, though I have encountered plenty of Christians who seem to feel otherwise, also.

My hope would be that atheists could take the same tack.

I guess what I am saying is that trying to convince each other is a massive waste of time. As you point out in your piece, there is never agreement, nor is there ever likely to be.

So as long as we can not get in each other's faces about what "ought" to be believed or not, who cares? I honestly don't know why I ought to be bothered about your atheism. I can't imagine why you should be bothered by my belief. I respect you. Gauging from your posts, I feel like it's not out of line for me to say that I like you. I presume you respect me also, because you've never given me cause to think otherwise. And if not, well, that's a shame, but hardly cause for strife. So why should we waste each other's time trying to change what can only be changed from within? The same principle, IMO, applies in general.

levite wins the internet today.

This really speaks to me. I feel much the same, but on the Christian side of things.

Thank you for your wonderful post, levite.

Ditto.

Woah.. a year later...

I respect people, not necessarily their beliefs. At some point, you gotta call a personal loving sky wizard what it is. That doesn't affect my willingness to be someone's friend though. For instance a buddy's girlfriend (but also my friend) and I are always at odds when it comes to shit like god, alternative medicine and all that... but that doesn't mean that I won't stick up for her or want to hang out with her.

Beliefs are a matter of perspective, not intelligence. Not all of us have had the benefit of each others' perspectives.

Levite said what I feel. "Live and let live" is the way to go. Too many times have I heard someone try to convince me that what they believe is right and I am wrong. My opinion has always been "be a high quality human and believe what you want."

No one likes being preached to, remember that believers and atheists alike.

Hmm..or it could be that "God" created the big bang and let nature work itself. Created the opportunity for a celestial body to sustain life through infinite chances, and with an immense amount of chances over infinite time, it's certainly happened elsewhere as well. It doesn't take away from the fact that a god could have created all of these possibilities.

Believing that others don't
without knowing what they really think
is natural & trying...

I'm sure God has a hand in it.