
Does religion make you nice? Does atheism make you mean? - robg
http://www.slate.com/id/2203614/pagenum/all/
======
jfornear
Hacker News? How does a slate.com article like this get on the front page?
I've read freshman philosophy papers that were more intellectually engaging
than this.

~~~
shader
In that case, maybe you should post links to them; they'd probably provide an
interesting, welcome alternative to articles this.

~~~
run4yourlives
Except that they aren't Hacker News.

------
kschrader
" _Most Americans who describe themselves as atheists, for instance,
nonetheless believe that their souls will survive the death of their bodies._
"

Wait, what? How does that make sense?

~~~
kirse
That, and: _"The Danes and the Swedes, despite being godless, have strong
communities. In fact, Zuckerman points out that most Danes and Swedes identify
themselves as Christian. They get married in church, have their babies
baptized, give some of their income to the church, and feel attached to their
religious community—they just don't believe in God."_

Any Danes or Swedes want to weigh in on this? I don't understand this at all.

~~~
lhorn
Makes perfect sense: they've clearly separated traditions and habits from
religion.

The tradition of getting married in church is no different from a habit of
screaming "jesus motherfucking christ!" when faced with a scary chance of
seeing Texas Tech playing in a national championship game: no reason to call
someone religious on both grounds.

~~~
kirse
OK, but you can't "identify yourself as Christian" and then not believe in the
existence of God. That's mainly my confusion, maybe it's a poor choice of
words for the writer.

~~~
netcan
Again, these things are the kinds of definitions that are fuzzy.

People identify themselves (& others) as Jews regardless of their beliefs. In
areas where religion has become the current tribal banner such as N. Ireland,
India, Iraq, etc., people do something similar.

Often they mean association with a group. Sometimes they mean
ancestry/heritage. 'Identify as a Christian' tends to mean different things in
different places.

------
kaens
_"Where there is no God, all is permitted."_

As much as I like Dostoyevsky, this is bullshit in this context.

Perhaps "Where there is no God, as well as the lack of critical thought about
what is best for group survival, all is permitted"

I'm an atheist, and I think that all common morality is based off of one
concept - _consent_. I think one can very easily come to logical conclusions
about how one should act towards other humans in the absence of a higher power
- one just has to think about it.

~~~
ars
No you can't. You can not come up with a common morality from first
principles. It always must be imposed/started from above. Two people can think
about the same very difficult moral situation, and come up with opposite
answers - each person thinks the other is a horrible amoral human being. There
is no way from logic to decide who is right.

To go with the simplest example: abortion. Is it murder?

How about: is it OK to kill in self defense? What about kill 10 people to keep
yourself alive? What about killing someone who is not harming you, in order to
keep yourself alive? What about kill a baby to save 100 people?

None of these questions can be answered by thinking about them.

~~~
dgordon
Yes, they can. And because I'm bored enough to argue with people on the
Internet, I will.

"is it OK to kill in self defense?"

Yes. Someone who threatens your life has removed themself from any concept of
morality, like any other person initiating force against anyone else.

"What about kill 10 people to keep yourself alive?"

If they're ten gangsters trying to rob or rape or kill you, see the above. If
they're ten random people that some madman ordered you to murder for his own
reasons, at the cost of your own life if you do not, then morality cannot
apply here. There can be no right and wrong in the case of someone who is
acting under coercion.

"What about killing someone who is not harming you, in order to keep yourself
alive?"

Assuming no madman scenario, so no coercion (which would make it the same as
the above), no. Not for organs for transplant, nor for money to pay rent, nor
for two dollars for a loaf of bread. A person does not gain the right to use
force against others to get what they need to live by their inability to get
it by other means.

"What about kill a baby to save 100 people?"

I can't see any way this would apply outside of the madman scenario I answered
above.

All of these answers are based on my understanding of morality, which is
derived from first principles, as you put it. I'm not so bored as to write
about it in detail, and besides, the works of Ayn Rand provide a good first
approximation to it. (Read the part of Atlas Shrugged nobody actually reads
[in before "You mean any of it?"] -- John Galt's radio speech -- and you'll
get a good idea. The key phrase, as I recall, is "human life as the standard
of value.")

~~~
ars
[Kill in self defense] "yes"

And yet not everyone agrees - pacifists for example. They also thought about
it, and came to the opposite conclusion. The only reason you think it's OK is
that you live in a culture where that is the norm. Live somewhere else and
you'd think something else.

In neither case can you point me to universal principles that would help you
decide. I'm not looking for the answer, I'm looking for how to pick the
answer.

"If they're ten random people that some madman ordered you to murder for his
own reasons, at the cost of your own life if you do not, then morality cannot
apply here. There can be no right and wrong in the case of someone who is
acting under coercion."

Yes, 10 random people. You say morality cannot apply - yet you have to make a
choice: do you kill them or don't you? Which do you choose? And more
importantly how do you decide which to choose?

"no" to killing someone not harming you to keep yourself alive:

You said no. But thousands upon thousands of people throughout history chose
different. Some people would hold that keeping yourself alive is your utmost
responsibility, and trumps anything else. Even today people are not that
troubled by killing someone outside their group.

I don't agree - but I can not prove it beyond saying that probably
civilization would do better that way - but even that is not necessarily so.
Some civilizations are based on strength of arm (and your allies arms). Those
might do better then one not based on such - look at Tibet.

Both of the choices you listed match those of american norms and those of the
bible (which is where they originated).

"I'm not so bored as to write about it in detail"

But that was the entire question - the examples listed don't need an answer,
they are just a point to example how two people might come up with totally
different logical answers.

I'm not going to read Atlas Shrugged - I had enough with philosophical books
disguised as novels when I read The Sword of Truth series (it started great,
then got horrible) - and it's based on Ayn's works.

But, I read a wikipedia summary, and I know for sure that many disagree with
her. If she can really come up with a morality from first principles - how can
you disagree?

I say you can't. You either pick randomly, or you let someone above you pick.
Most people do the second - they do what they grew up with, and their parents
did the same, etc, if you go back, for almost the entire world it's ultimately
based on the ideas of the bible.

~~~
unalone
I won't get into all of this argument - it's a good one, and I'm enjoying
reading it - but Ayn Rand does one thing that very few other people do: she
admits outright what her works are. She never pretends to teach anything other
than Objectivism. And while her thoughts are flawed, she has an ability to
take complex thoughts and make them easy to follow. Atlas Shrugged is
absolutely worth a read.

Ironically, your saying that you don't like Rand because other people don't
like her is going along with the very principle that Rand most stands against.
Make your own opinions, based on your own logic. Don't follow what other
people say. Read it yourself and decide.

~~~
ars
Actually I didn't say I didn't like Rand (I don't know enough about her to
have an opinion), I just said I wouldn't read the book.

Mainly because it's too long, but also because if I wanted to read on that
topic I would prefer a survey, plus I don't like philosophy books masquerading
as fiction.

I'm glad you are enjoying reading about this, but it seems to have stopped.
Plus I got some downmods, so I guess other people are not enjoying it quite as
much.

------
alan
So, the conclusion of the article is that, in the US, religion causes athiests
to be immoral. That's one of the more ludicrous statements I've heard: all
those poor athiests unable to take responsibility for their own actions.

------
josefresco
Does participating in these debates make us dumb?

~~~
tdavis
I'm not even sure what we're debating. The entire article is just anecdotal
evidence that completely fails to make a point.

I mean, I'll throw my hat in. I'm an atheist and a pretty big jackass. I'd
sooner burn a church down with everyone inside than donate to it; I'm pretty
much as amoral as they come and don't regret any of the morally "bad" things
I've done in my life.

I guess the article is accurate. Debate over!

~~~
sgibat
The point was that belonging to a community is more important to the strength
of your moral compass than your religion of lack of it and that in America,
religion fosters community.

About communities, I agree.

------
IsaacSchlueter
"Religion poisons everything"... even atheism.

~~~
alexandros
atheism will become a religion when an empty plate is considerred a meal.
mmmm, yummy!

------
Dilpil
The issue of atheism vs religion is not about what produces a better moral
compass, but what view of the universe is correct.

~~~
ars
That's an extremely simple minded way of thinking.

First of all it's impossible to know which is correct. So instead you look at
the effect on people.

Second truth isn't everything - it looks that way, but when you run a
civilization entirely on truth it fails, and can not survive.

I have a feeling you're not going to understand this, it took me years to
understand it - I wanted only truth, and was utterly miserable, until I
understood that truth isn't everything (and I'm not talking about religion
BTW).

Sometimes believing something that is wrong gives a better outcome. Which is
more important? The truth? Or the outcome?

Don't answer quickly - philosophers have been arguing about this for
millennia. I chose truth and was miserable. I recently changed my mind.

~~~
dgordon
"Second truth isn't everything - it looks that way, but when you run a
civilization entirely on truth it fails, and can not survive."

When you run a civilization (whatever "running a civilization" means) based
entirely on truth (the facts of reality) it cannot survive? How's that? And,
by the way, what's the alternative to that? Lies, wishes, and general
irrationality? How's that working out?

~~~
ars
Just to give you a quick example of what I mean - imagine if police knew every
single time you didn't come to a complete stop, or sped up to make a yellow
light.

Or if people around you knew every single thing you thought about them. Or if
your parents knew every time you misbehaved.

Civilization would not survive such a thing. You need the lies. A world where
people could not (or would not) ever lie would not function.

------
nazgulnarsil
Hold on just a minute guys. Are you trying to tell me that human beliefs are
not logically consistent?!

------
blurry
_Where there is no God, all is permitted._

Yet another argument for religion based on a lie.

This widely quoted phrase (In Russian: _Если Бога нет, то всё дозволено_ ) is
commonly attributed to Brothers Karamazov. Except it is not anywhere in there.
I just spent a good half poring over the original text chapter by chapter and
nothing. Nada. Doesn't exist.

My biggest problem however is not the veracity of the quote. It's the
intellectual dishonesty of taking words from a _fictional_ character and
attributing them to Dostoevsky himself. Although I should not be surprised.
Faith and the inability to distinguish between reality and fiction go hand in
hand, don't they?

------
Hexstream
Some of the worst serial-killers were deeply religious ("even after all I did,
I know God forgives all"); doesn't that hint that you don't need to be
religious to be nice?

~~~
jimbokun
This demonstrates how any atheism vs. religion debate has a short fused,
built-in self-destruct mechanism.

"All the serial killers are religious!" "All the genocidal Communists were
atheists!" Etc.

I've pretty much come to the conclusion that all atheism/religion discussions
on the Internet (even Hacker News) are guaranteed to get real stupid, real
fast.

~~~
olefoo
It's the most easily reached stable equilibrium since no actual evidence pro
or contra can be produced that would be acceptable to both parties to the
debate.

~~~
dgordon
Hey, "Never attribute to malice what can be explained with math," right? ;-)

------
gills
Doesn't this completely miss the point?

Most religions claim some level of enlightenment in showing grace over
condemning another person's morality. The effects of religion on morality
should, by definition, be irrelevant to atheists.

------
mattmaroon
So religion makes atheists mean.

------
giardini
I'll believe all Americans are equal when an atheist is elected President.

~~~
sofal
So, in other words, equality in America will be accomplished when someone like
you is elected President?

How inclusive. My turn...

I'll believe all Americans are equal when a gay, handicapped, unattractive
Muslim woman who never attended college is elected President.

~~~
ars
Are you saying you are a "gay, handicapped, unattractive Muslim woman who
never attended college"?

:)

~~~
sgibat
He's sayingg he's a straight, healthy, attractive atheist man who attended
college with five arms.

