Agnostics for God
I understand that Friday night, the lovely and brainy SE Cupp cleaned the clock of God hater Bill Maher on his HBO show. Cupp, billed as an atheist (though she once told me she was agnostic), was touting her book Losing our Religion about the media's war on faith. I'm currently reading Melanie Phillips spectacular The World Turned Upside Down. Phillips describes herself as an agnostic Jew, but she too has noticed that the current intellectual assault on God is not based on reason at all, but is merely prejudice backed up by bullying and name-calling. I wonder if this constitutes the start of a movement: atheists and agnostics who realize that the house of freedom and civilization is, in fact, God's house. If the Big Guy is holding the roof up, you don't want to see him removed whether you believe in him or not.
- Comment (26)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
May '10
Re: Agnostics for God
As Jefferson wrote in Notes on the State of Virginia:
"Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not violated but with his wrath?"
Re: Agnostics for God
Ottoman Umpire: As Jefferson wrote in Notes on the State of Virginia:
"Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not violated but with his wrath?" · Jun 7 at 9:44am
Or as John Adams wrote:
--October 11, 1798
May '10
Re: Agnostics for God
If true, this line of thought is not good news. If the goodness of government is less determined by its structure, and more by the character of the people, what are our prospects now? Can anyone argue that Americans are as pious, or have as much republican virtue, as in the time of the founding?
May '10
Re: Agnostics for God
I might argue that Americans, in general, are as pious as in the time of the founding. I think that is probably the real significance of the Tea Parties; at least the couple of events I have attended.
What is different, I believe, is that American "leaders" are are now devoid of the piety and the "republican virtue" that marked their predecessors. John Adams wrote, "If ever time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin." Is there anyone who could dispute that our country is now led by "vain and aspiring men"?
Re: Agnostics for God
Tom, I think you've just illuminated the critical distinction here, between the elites in the political class, and the folks who are now in open revolt. That we are now led by, "vain and aspiring" men is beyond dispute. That the chasm between these people and the Americans who get up every day and actually make this country work is wide enough for me to parallel-park my 18 wheeler in, is equally obvious. Note the drop in the number of town hall meetings this year. The people that Adams called, "experienced patriots" are now dismissed as ignorant and disparaged as racists. I would submit that these patriots are exactly the kinds of people the Founders knew would be indispensable to the nation's survival.
May '10
Re: Agnostics for God
Elites are a valid concern, but the problem extends to common Americans. Many people have been fooled into disbelieving that government is a moral enterprise. They've come to perceive all moral discourse as preaching and egocentric.
In the Declaration of Independence, the Founders assert that people are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" and that "to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men". In other words, rights are granted by God, not by government. Government is a means to guard the rights we possess inherently as human beings.
Many Americans, including common folks to whom religion is important, have been convinced that rights are granted by government.
There are no longer public discussions of the morals on which ethical judgments are based, and it's often common religious folks who object to such discussions. Ethics are nothing more than the application of morals to specific circumstances. These days, many Americans like to pretend that we can debate actions without any attention to the fundamentals.
May '10
Re: Agnostics for God
Surely, its the case that many of our nation's founders asserted that our rights were derived from God. However, (as I've argued before) assertion is separate from demonstration. It must be demonstrated that our rights derive from God before such a proposition can be considered as true. Such a demonstration would have to include, among of other things, a proof of God's existence (God can't offer rights if he/she/it doesn't exist to begin with). It seems to me that such an undertaking would be a tall order.
May '10
Re: Agnostics for God
Michael, one needn't accept the existence of a loving God to believe that a human being without government is still due certain rights; that rights precede government declarations. You're right that the beliefs of the Founders do not dictate our present course. But I expect many atheists and agnostics would agree that government is (initially) a means by which a people protects its most basic freedoms and asserts its collective intent.
Freedom is a moral concern. Morals are simply social values. How should this person interact with that person? How should this people interact with that people? One needn't believe in God to see that moral goals motivate political action and moral rules guide that action.
May '10
Re: Agnostics for God
Andrew, as a datapoint for you -- I've got a self-described atheist friend who draws a distinction between bomb-throwers like Hitchens and scholars like Dawkins. He says the former gives atheism a bad name. That said, as a theist I'm not sure I see the distinction myself, but for what it's worth...
May '10
Re: Agnostics for God
Aaron,
I certainly agree that rights exist independently of government - governments only ought to protect them.
Harlech,
Hitchens is good on Islamic fascism. Dawkins, when he chooses to become political, focuses on science education and not foreign policy.
May '10
Re: Agnostics for God
Aaron,
The claim I'm disputing is the one that civil society (free trade, rule of law, etc.) depends upon religious philosophy, particularly religious metaphysics and ethics. If religion is a necessary condition or cause of the existence of civil society (if freedom, then religion), then the implication is that irreligion necessarily leads to socially detrimental consequences (not religion, therefore not freedom).
May '10
Re: Agnostics for God
It depends on how you define "religion", Michael. I believe a religion is a fundamental and comprehensive perception of what reality is and what response that reality elicits.
It's common to think religion always involves claims regarding the supernatural, but I believe such claims are non-essential. People only think that because the vast majority of human beings throughout the world and throughout history have believed there is a supernatural aspect to our existence. Even without any stance on supernatural forces/beings whatsoever, people inevitably form a system of fundamental beliefs regarding how they should relate to the world and to each other.
And that's morality. Morals are standards of interaction between the free wills of individuals and everything those individuals encounter.
Thus, morality and religion are inseparable. One cannot define sensible rules of interaction before making claims toward what one is interacting with. Morality is an act of religion.
So, if one accepts that governments exist to enforce morals (standards of value and associated behavior), then governments are dependent upon religions.
I believe all people are religious. I also believe philosophy and theology are basically the same.
May '10
Re: Agnostics for God
Even as one who--if I'm really, truly honest with myself--does not have faith, I'm afraid that the evidence shows that the above implication is, in fact, true. Not necessarily on the individual level, of course, but population-wide, yes. Which is why I'm entirely pragmatic on such things: I prefer to live in a country where a majority of the citizens are church-goers. Definitely. Likewise, when I find out that the family of a particular friend of one of my kids is church-involved, it makes me suspect that the friend in question is likely a "good kid." Not fool-proof, of course, but certainly better odds.
And this is why Hitchen's "How Religion Poisons Everything" subtitle is so silly. If he would have contented himself with, say, "How Religion, on Balance, is a Force for Evil," he would have been clever enough to make the case without being disingenuous. As it is, he's created a situation where he can't grant a single concession and so has to slouch into intellectual dishonesty--rhetorical tricks, or whatever--again and again.
May '10
Re: Agnostics for God
I should clarify my last claim. Not all people are religious, but all moral people are religious (which does not mean all believe in God or the supernatural). No person can avoid having moral beliefs, but a person without a comprehensive perception of the world and his/her role in that world will act impulsively, erratically. To act with moral consistency, one must have a consistent worldview.
My conclusion is poorly stated, I think, but you can probably understand my reasoning.
What happens under oppressive governments is that citizens either turn to materialistic religions (class warfare, hedonism, etc) or they fail form any consistent worldview.
May '10
Re: Agnostics for God
I would deny the claim that irreligion necessarily leads to socially detrimental consequences on either an individual or population-wide level. What evidence supports this conclusion?
I'd like to anticipate an objection. Often, monotheist proponents of the above claim appeal to the ruin deliberately caused by atheist dictators/regimes during the 20th century (Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Hitler, etc.) as supportive evidence of the claim. No doubt, the worst governments have been atheist ones. However, one must determine the precise motivation behind the conduct of these regimes. One can commit murder in the name of atheism if one wishes. However, the relevant point is if atheism condones that which is done in its name.
With respect to the 20th century, it was the belief in socialism, in statism, I believe, that was the primary motivation behind the behaviour of the Soviet Union, of the Communist Party in China, and behind Pol Pot's regime (not as much with regard to Hitler). Since socialism requires the nationalization of the major non-human factors of production by force, its logical to conclude that it requires mass murder in the face of opposition to the nationalization process.
May '10
Re: Agnostics for God
I think the reason that morality and religion are so closely bound is quite simple. If you tell me I must act in a certain way, my first reaction will be, "Who says so?" In other words, the appeal to authority. I think the Founders grew up and lived in a society where the existence of God and His rightful authority were givens. Thus, there is no need to develop a rationale for what everyone understands as given.
But in our era, what one commentator has called a "cut-flower society" (meaning cut off from its roots), that assumption of moral authority has fallen on hard times. I think the average person will choose either to recognize that God exists and has the right to speak authoritatively, or they will choose to be a god unto themselves making their own determination of good and evil. And it is clear that our society does a poor job of providing young people with the necessary tools to make unselfish choices in that event.
May '10
Re: Agnostics for God
Aaron,
I think the essence of religion is far more narrow. A religion is a belief system that includes a belief in a divine creator (religious metaphysics), a commitment to faith (religious epistemology), and, usually, a belief in altruism (religious ethics). I use the term "religion" to refer to any such belief system.
It seems the connotation you lend to the term "religion" is so broad that it would permit the labeling of atheists like Hitchens as "religious" since he too possesses a comprehensive worldview.
May '10
Re: Agnostics for God
Why can't people form "ought" propositions that assert relations as good or evil via reason in the absence of a divine creator.
May '10
Re: Agnostics for God
Well, let's think about it from this angle. Whether or not we call them religions, most people eventually latch onto basically consistent and comprehensive worldviews. The alternatives to "religious" worldviews (involving God or spirits) are materialistic worldviews. Atheism is not a worldview. It is merely a pivotal premise, as is a belief in God. So...
Which materialistic worldviews have proven capable of sustaining a productive and relatively peaceful society?
Of course, that something has never been witnessed does not mean it could not happen. But it is generally pragmatic to bet on history.
Religious or not, strong beliefs drive nations. America's detour from the Constitution is largely due to a change in the beliefs of common Americans.
May '10
Re: Agnostics for God
Folks are being way too philosophical for me. My reason for believing that absence of religion tends to lead (population-wide if not in any particular individual case) to poor social outcomes is the simple, real-life observation that regular church-goers are less likely to indulge in social pathologies: drug addiction, crime, unwed pregnancies, and so on. For the stats, see Arthur Brooks. No need for all the grand philosophizing (even though I enjoy reading it).