To the editor:
Richard Smith (Public Forum, Jan. 15) states that theism (belief in a god) is the only position that "tells us what morality is." Many Christians think that God-believers have a corner on the market for morality and atheists (who do not have a belief in a god) lack morality. This bigotry toward the nonreligious is unkind and inaccurate.
To support this position, many Christians tout the Bible as a "God-inspired" moral guide. The Bible is full of murder, rape, incest, slavery and child abuse. Read it. God has children mutilated by bears as a form of punishment. Another verse says: "The bluer the wound cleanseth away evil." How sick is that! And how about a father figure that allows for his son to be murdered when he had the power to stop it. What immoral, sadistic, and unhealthy stories to follow. The 10 Commandments don't even include: Don't commit child abuse or rape. The first four rules of biblical morality simply spin around God's vanity.
Even the morally salvageable parts of the Bible, such as the Golden Rule, come from pre-Christian times (Confucius 500 BCE, Zoroastrians 1500 BCE). Sorry, morals don't come from a belief in a mystical being, but from responsible decisions and behavior that some of us humans make to try to better society for our children's children and so forth. Put simply, some religious people are moral some of the time and some are immoral some of the time. The same goes for the nonreligious. Have a nice day.
Brenda Frei,
Lawrence
Comments
LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.
kylebatson (anonymous) says…
Looks like I wasn't the only one upset with Mr. Smith's article. Thanks for the letter.
craigers (anonymous) says…
Typical spin from what seems to be an athiest. This letter is absurd and tries to lump all their attacks that they have been fed from others against Christianity in one letter to really send the point home to the Christians. Either way, Christians believe that we all have a sense of morality that comes from being God's creation. That is how we all seem to have a pretty good consensus on what we all consider moral and immoral. Strange how people from multiple different backgrounds have similar feelings on morality. That is what we as Christians feel is that God has put this moral code in each and every one of us and without guidance in another form consider racism, hate, murder, etc bad things unless driven in another direction. Man is so proud and arrogant of what they think they can accomplish that they even try to take credit for the morality that we all have created deep inside of us.
I will not debate the rest of the letter and the assualts on the bible, because God's word will stand the test of time and the prophetic words from Daniel, Isaiah, John, and Jesus himself will come true and "Every knee will bow, and every tongue will confess that Jesus is Lord."
budwhysir (anonymous) says…
When I read the paper, getting a lesson on morality or religion is not on my mind. I see so many things in the paper that go against both topics that I dont take time to read another view point on it. That is all thank you and have a good day
Kodiac (anonymous) says…
"Strange how people from multiple different backgrounds have similar feelings on morality. That is what we as Christians feel is that God has put this moral code in each and every one of us and without guidance in another form" -- Craigers
Yet I find it curious that some Christians such as Craigers will see this concept of morality ONLY as a God given trait and will not consider other possibilities. How open is your mind Craigers? Do you not consider that empathy (which is certainly something that a moral code could originate from) may be a biological trait in many species of organisms that is evolutionary advantageous. A species social system could be dependent on such a trait which allows them to be robust in their survival and procreation. Is this not a possibility Craigers. We do have other emotions that do have a genetic basis such as anger, sadness, happiness, etc. A genetic basis for empathy is not about humans taking credit but rather something that has evolved in us. Got to go....
Kam_Fong_as_Chin_Ho (anonymous) says…
This exchange is getting boring and predictable.
smith (anonymous) says…
You are correct, Brenda. What Mr. Smith can't wrap his head around is that morals are about actions, not about guidelines. logicsound
------------------------------------------------------------------
What basis do you have for making that assertion? If there is not guideline for actions, then how do we know that they are moral or not? There is a basis to determine that actions are moral or there is not. If there is no basis, then all actions are equally moral or immoral.
======================================
The very fact that not all Christians are moral proves that God (if he in fact exists) is not the arbiter of all that is moral. logicsound
---------------------------------------------------------------------
On what basis do you determine what is Christian and what is not? On what basis do you determine whether they are moral or not? You are still stuck in the same primordial slimepit of having no way to evolve a basis for morality. Yet you continue to make moral pronouncements and try to shove them on the rest of us. Why is that?
The fact that some professing Christians are not moral (whatever that may mean in a universe apart from a moral basis) proves nothing other than that some people profess to be one thing and and are not in reality.
smith (anonymous) says…
Looks like I wasn't the only one upset with Mr. Smith's article. Thanks for the letter. kylebatson
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Yet without a real basis for morality, why should that letter upset you? You certainly didn't demonstrate any basis or guidelines in your letter apart from you didn't like certain things.
smith (anonymous) says…
Yet I find it curious that some Christians such as Craigers will see this concept of morality ONLY as a God given trait and will not consider other possibilities.
kodiac
------------------------------------------------------------------
No one is giving us any other real possibilties.
======================================
How open is your mind Craigers? Do you not consider that empathy (which is certainly something that a moral code could originate from) may be a biological trait in many species of organisms that is evolutionary advantageous. kodiac
----------------------------------------------------------------
In that case it would not be morality but simply acting like a machine. Empathy might also be nothing but a selfish reaction since we wouldn't want to be like that. If empathy can be a biological reaction, then why can't murder and rape be biological reactions too. If it is nothing but a biological trait, it is not moral it is simply a reaction. Let us get the justice system to quit persecution these poor people for simply acting out what they have evolved to do. After all, if they have evolved that way it is better for the species as a whole. Say, that would make murder out to be a good thing.
====================================
A species social system could be dependent on such a trait which allows them to be robust in their survival and procreation. kodiac
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Then who cares? So what if any species of animal including humanity disappears. It is to the betterment of the society of evolution. Who cares if they survive or not. Can you provide a moral basis for the good or harm of survival and why anyone would care coming from an evolutionary point of view?
========================================
Is this not a possibility Craigers. We do have other emotions that do have a genetic basis such as anger, sadness, happiness, etc. A genetic basis for empathy is not about humans taking credit but rather something that has evolved in us. Got to go.... kodiac
--------------------------------------------------------------------
So genetics determine my anger and happiness? We are all nothing but robots responding to an ever evolving series of animals and activites around us. We can't do anything but what has been determined by evolution for us to do. Some will murder and rape and others will be nice, but it is all the same thing. Such is the so-called morality that the evolutionists leave us with.
If Bush evolved like he has, then why do people protest? After all, it is survival of the fittest and what is best for evolution as a whole.
smith (anonymous) says…
Posted by Kam_Fong_as_Chin_Ho (anonymous) on January 18, 2007 at 11:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This exchange is getting boring and predictable.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A rather boring and predictable response.
deec (anonymous) says…
Perhaps the Book's writers merely borrowed the moral concepts from pre-existing religions, just as they borrowed dates of holidays, symbols, and various rites.
budwhysir (anonymous) says…
Moraly speaking, I dont think it is politicaly exceptable for me to learn my religon schooling from a newspaper article.
craigers (anonymous) says…
Kodiac, I honestly don't see morality as just a simple trait because morality being a trait would reduce us to simple robots as Smith has mentioned. Or rather we would no longer be concious individuals that know right from wrong but merely a slave to genetics.
jrlii (anonymous) says…
James Russell Lowell, in his poem which became the hymn "Once to Every Man and Nation," points out the Achilles heel of religions which grant authority to written scripture: "New occasions teach new duties, time makes ancient good uncouth. . ."
Christianity, along with Judaism, Islam and Mormonism are trapped by the tradition of authoritative scripture: Times move on, but scripture, bound to the page changeth not.
Just this morning I was thinking that the liberal churches need to organize a convention on scriptural authority which would (or at least could) demote fairly substantial sections of the Old Testament and even a few bits of the New to some lesser status than the authority they now possess. I figure the whole book of Joshua (with its command of genocide) would go, along with large swathes of Leviticus and Deuteronomy.
It's not as though fundamentalists aren't already picking and choosing scriptures. . .
manhattanite (anonymous) says…
"Christianity, along with Judaism, Islam and Mormonism are trapped by the tradition of authoritative scripture: Times move on, but scripture, bound to the page changeth not."
What would be the implications of a God who could change in the essence of his being? Would he be changing from better to worse or worse to better? The first would imply his eventual extinction while the second that he had a fixed beginning. Any being who had a beginning is not God because something else would have had to give it a beginning and so would be its God. You are then left with a god that is something more like humans than the true God. If the scripture is the Word of God, then to say that it is no longer true is to either imply that God is a liar or that He has somehow changed.
Agnostick (anonymous) says…
... unless, of course, a fallible human misinterpreted that "scripture" somewhere along the way...
Ultimately, it's not about God, but about how humans *perceive* God... isn't it?
Agnostick
agnostick@excite.com
kylebatson (anonymous) says…
Smith said: "Yet without a real basis for morality, why should that letter upset you? You certainly didn't demonstrate any basis or guidelines in your letter apart from you didn't like certain things."
So, only people who claim their morality comes from God have emotions? I do not wish to be mean, but your arguments sound more and more foolish each time I see you post on here.
Emotions, empathy, concern, fear, anger, love, and many others, are present in many other species besides humans. I suppose when elephants mourn the death of their kin, it is their belief in God supplying the emotion? These arguments are not only becoming illogical but incoherent as well.
budwhysir (anonymous) says…
Moraly speaking, one should not learn religon from the local newspaper
Kodiac (anonymous) says…
Wow Smith it is hard to know exactly where to start because most of your statements don't make any sense at all and it is quite clear that you have no understanding of what evolutionary theory is or what it is about. Take this statement for example....
"It is to the betterment of the society of evolution" -- Smith
Huh? What the heck are you trying to say here Smith. Do you have any idea what you just said because I sure as heck don't. This is just mumble jumble nonsense. It is like saying "hey look see that tree, that means you are going to h*ll.
"After all, it is survival of the fittest and what is best for evolution as a whole. " -- Smith
Typical creationist statements that have nothing to do with evolution. Evolution does not have a goal so you can't have a best and 'survival of the fittest' is not only misleading but derived from a social theory of Hubert Spencer which has nothing to do with the biological concept of evolution.
In all cases Smith, you are making an assumption that there has to be an external objective standard of what good or bad is which is not the same thing as a personal moral code. To claim that we would be reduced to robots is an obvious red herring or strawman. All I said was that empathy could form the basis for designing a moral code.
If anybody is talking about being a robot, I would argue that you and Craigers are actually trying to ascribe to a claim that would make you both specifically robots. You claim that your morality comes from religion and I assume specifically from the bible. But I say that claim is comletely false. Most christians and probably both of you do not draw the core and essence of their or your morality from religion, but are informed by it. No reasonable person would follow ALL of the teachings of the bible such as those from the Old Testament, as they are easily seen to be harmful. Instead, a truly moral, religious person understands that the bible isn't all there is to it. He or she would use their own (what they would be considered to be Godgiven) ability to reason. a person takes from religious morality what is good, applies it in an informed way, and ends up being a person who is consciously acting as a moral person. You guys are making it out to be that it is about obedience to a document, a concept that I think is completely false in reality. Morality is about willingness and capability for rational choice in a context where the benefit is for society instead of the individual. Religion can have its place in causing the individual to want to believe in it, true. But it by no means is the only means of arriving at the said conclusion.
budwhysir (anonymous) says…
Robots in a moral religon??
Kodiac (anonymous) says…
As I have said I think religious morality is inferior in that there is a risk of doing exactly what you and Craigers are proposing, an adherence to a literal interpretation of what the bible says. That would seriously stifle one's capability of actually making a reasoned choice in moral matters. I have argued all along morality is a secular concept and does not adhere to a specific religion.
Remember, there are no absolutes morally, if there were, then we would still be doing the exact same acts promoted by the Old Testament of the Bible or the Koran or whatever religious doctrine you follow. Surely you recognize that we do not follow the same moral codes that were written in the Old testament in today's world? So there is no literal interpretation here. As the letter writer points out, there is nothing in the 10 commandments about many acts of individuals of what we consider to be "morally wrong" today.
Smith states that "Some will murder and rape and others will be nice, but it is all the same thing." but this statement is completely false. Atheists have to make their own personl choices based on their own reason for they don't have any external guidelines to follow. We all know that antisocial behavior is bad. Not only for the individual, but for the surrounding community. Atheists more than anybody understand that moral behavior, with the huge benefits it brings to social interaction, is the bulwark of well-being. After all, to atheists, that well-being is pretty much all there is. There is nothing else out there for them. They don't get compensated later in any way. They have a choice in the matter, true, but there's no real choice to it. They have to be moral now, whether we like it or not.
Morality is what keeps the society together. It's what other people (theist or atheist) expect of everyone. Atheists do understand what morality is about, and have a strong incentive to abide by it. Atheists don't have the bible to tell them what moral means, precisely, but they try very hard to find out, for their own benefit. Not because they are altruists, but because morality is necessary, expected and good. After all, all we have is our own selves and those around us.
Sorry got to go again.....
Kodiac (anonymous) says…
"Robots in a moral religon??" -- Budwhysir
I am saying that is how Smith and Craigers are trying to define it because what they are talking about is a blind obedience to a literal interpretation of a document. They make humans out to be like "robots" based on their own reasoning but I am saying that in reality this is not what happens with most individuals theists or atheists....
craigers (anonymous) says…
Kodiac, I agree with what you are saying. Yes athiests and believers alike can act in a moral way. You are poluting what I said earlier and trying to say that how I act is strictly by what the bible says, I do but I didn't read the bible first and then act morally. You must read the whole bible to get the big picture. What I said before was that we were all given a conscience that guides us in what is right and wrong. This is a God given ability and God created man in His image. Not just Christians. That is why we have this overall consensus on what is right and wrong. This is how athiests and Christians can believe the same on a morality standpoint. Even if I never read the bible, i would know that murder, incest, adultery, etc are wrong and I shouldn't participate. Could I choose to commit those things, yes that is another trait we all have and that is free will to choose what we do on a daily basis. My morals were given to me when I was created and as I have grown I can see the consequences in society of moral and immoral actions, thus reinforcing the morals I hold. And the same goes for athiests, they have an innate sense of right and wrong, and can see the benefits in society of acting morally, thus yielding those people that are good people, just as there are good Christian people. Now having been studying the bible and putting to practice its teachings, I have seen even more of it to be true and proved in my life, thus reinforcing it as being the guide/manual for my life.
Ragingbear (anonymous) says…
I like cereal....
Which of course...
Means your going to hell.
gr (anonymous) says…
"What I said before was that we were all given a conscience that guides us in what is right and wrong. "
Ya mean like (but skipping those which "some" find offensive):
Rom 1:20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
Rom 1:21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.
Rom 1:22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools
Rom 1:23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
Rom 1:25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen.
Rom 1:28 Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done.
Porter (anonymous) says…
Hey Dambudzo - Lump me in as #3. I want to know which non-religious people have been trying to force their morals on you.
Kodiac (anonymous) says…
Craigers,
So you are merely assigning a transcendental property to good and bad and that is fine with me. I don't agree with it but I respect your right to believe in it. I am merely saying that there are other possibilities. There is a genetic basis for our emotions including empathy, which in turn could explain where our concept of morality comes from. While I do recognize that I do have empathy for others and thus form some personal level of morality from it, I do not necessarily have to believe in some external standard to live by such a code or believe in some personal version of right or wrong. The earlier statement you made Craigger was that "Or rather we would no longer be concious individuals that know right from wrong but merely a slave to genetics." is completely false or nonsense. How does one become a slave to a biological process? The biological process doesn't dictate that we have to belief a certain way. How can one be "no longer conscious".
Obviously we are all conscious and obviously as you state, atheists do act morally and take responsibility and have a sense of right or wrong. I think the key here is that those who claim to have knowledge of transendetal moral facts invariably believe that they have some direct and immediate connection to those facts. But adding a god to show what this connection is does not explain our sense of right or wrong any more than positing that such connections are part of the natural order of things through evolutionary processes. We all still have a sense of right or wrong but none of us really can say with absolute certainty why that is. No matter how hard you try and I think you are most definitely saying this Craigger, it still comes down to YOUR personal judgement of what is right and what is wrong. You are still making a choice just like an atheist would be making a choice. I personally feel that an atheist is in a stronger position with respect to morality than those who believe in transcendent facts and introduce a god to reveal those facts. I do acknowledge both the existence/nonexistence of transcendental moral facts and the human sense of right or wrong will to some degree remain mysterious for anyone who believes in them and/or feels this sense.
Agnostick (anonymous) says…
I hereby nominate RagingBear's 3:14pm post for today's "Post of the Day" award.
Agnostick
agnostick@excite.com
Calliope877 (anonymous) says…
Awesome letter, Brenda!
:) I tried to make a similar point once, but I didn't state it half as well as you did. Kudos.:)
Calliope877 (anonymous) says…
Kodiac, I think you're my hero.:)
Calliope877 (anonymous) says…
"Posted by logicsound04 (anonymous) on January 18, 2007 at 5:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Or maybe, what morals are we forcing upon you dambudzo? I mean specifically name them. If you can't name specifics, then it is YOU who are being argumentative."
I took dambudzo's comment, "I wish non-religious people would quit forcing their morals on the rest of us" as sarcastic. Maybe it wasn't meant to be funny, but I thought it was...but then, I have a very odd sense of humor. :(
budwhysir (anonymous) says…
Moraly speaking, are we still speaking about religon.
What does one have to do to get the post of the day award. That would be one more feather in my hat around here
budwhysir (anonymous) says…
Moraly speaking, all men are created equal, its your newspaper that makes the difference
Calliope877 (anonymous) says…
"Posted by logicsound04 (anonymous) on January 18, 2007 at 9:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Calliope,
Based on dambudzo's history of comments, I would be very surprised if he was being sarcastic."
I see.:) Well, even if he was serious, I still thought it was funny despite me being a non-religious person.:)
craigers (anonymous) says…
Kodiac, agree to disagree, huh? I do appreciate the fact that you listened and responded thoughtfully. Thanks for the discussion.
budwhysir (anonymous) says…
I think the argument is that moraly speaking, one day is enough to cover religon in the newspaper.