The Sacred Ground of Humanism

[rug]

Posted: 01/07/2016 11:06 am EST
Updated: 01/07/2016 11:59 am EST

The religions of the world have their fair share of holy sites. It might be the ruins of an ancient temple or it might be the birthplace of a religious prophet or the alleged son of a deity. For some, graveyards are considered sacred ground. As an atheist, none of these things apply. My sacred ground is all around us. My only holy site is the one we are all standing on and, if we are not careful, it will be in ruins. It will be the graveyard of all humanity.

Warring about who are the chosen people of the gods or which ancient text was divinely inspired just seems to be incredibly shortsighted to me. Prayers, rituals, ancient superstitions, and the false certainty of faith divide us. As a godless humanist, I would rather focus on what we can reasonably know and how we can use that to make the world better for us all. I don't see vague ancient prophecies of rapture and damnation as helpful in this regard and I would much rather see people living their lives working toward a better future for humanity rather than clinging to their faith in a heavenly reward for themselves.

It is only when we are able to see the Earth from somewhere else that we begin to realize just how silly our ancient superstitions really are. We live on a small planet in a massive universe and yet people are fighting about a worthless patch of desert because they believe that the creator of the universe gave them the deed to this holy land. Instead of fighting over these things, we should be working together to settle other worlds.

We could be building moon bases and Martian colonies. We could be building generation ships to reach the newly discovered habitable planet Wolf 1061c. But instead, we have to fight religious terrorists who faithfully believe that their God demands satisfaction. And don't think for a moment that because I used the word, "terrorist" that I am only referring to Muslim extremists. No, there are Christian and Jewish terrorists who are also extreme in their beliefs that God needs them to violate the civil liberties, torture, and sometimes even kill the unclean and the unrighteous.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/staks-rosch/the-sacred-ground-of-huma_b_8912164.html

[Jim__]

1. Study shows thinking from God's perspective can reduce bias against others

From phys.org:

...

However, new research published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) reveals the opposite: religious beliefs might instead promote interfaith cooperation. Researchers from the New School for Social Research and Carnegie Mellon University examined how Palestinian youth made moral choices, from their own perspectives and from the perspective of Allah. The results showed that Muslim-Palestinians believed that Allah preferred them to value the lives of Palestinians and Jewish-Israelis more equally, raising the possibility that beliefs about God can mitigate bias against other groups and reduce barriers to peace.

"Our findings are important because one precursor to violence is when people believe that the lives of members of their group are more important than the lives of members of another group. Here, we show that religious belief—even amidst a conflict centered on religious differences—can lead people to apply universal moral principles similarly to believers and non-believers alike," said Jeremy Ginges, associate professor of psychology at the New School for Social Research.

For the study, 555 Palestinian adolescents between the ages of 12 and 18 were presented with a classic "trolley dilemma" that involved a Palestinian man being killed to save the lives of five children who were either Jewish-Israeli or Muslim-Palestinian. The participants responded from their own perspective and from Allah's perspective.

The results showed that although Muslim-Palestinian participants valued their own group's lives over Jewish-Israeli lives, they believed that Allah preferred them to value the lives of members of both groups more equally. In fact, thinking from Allah's perspective decreased the bias toward their own group by almost 30 percent.

...

[rug]

2. An excellent point.

Perspective changes everything.

[Humanist_Activist]

3. Does this get negated with the outward aggression present in those who more actively participate...

in their religion, as mentioned at the end of the article?

Also, this is, ultimately, a word problem, a survey and a rather abstract dilemma being proposed. Would this translate into real action and belief in the real world?

After all, and I just mention this as an aside, but it appears, and I could be wrong, but it appears that those who are more religious are less likely to be interested in interfaith dialog, of course, it could vary depending on the nature of their religions.

[Jim__]

4. The article doesn't actually say that.

I assume you're referring to the last paragraph of the article:

"There may be other aspects of religion that lead to outgroup aggression. For instance, other work done in conflict zones has identified participation in collective religious rituals and frequent attendance at a place of worship to be associated with support for violence. This study, however, adds to a growing literature on how religious belief can increase cooperation with people from other faiths," Argo said.

That specifically states there may be other aspects of religion that lead to outgroup aggression and also refers to work done in conflict zones, a confounding factor.

The larger point being that the causes of war are multifaceted and diverse. While it would be wonderful if we could all just focus on what we can reasonably know and how we can use that to make the world better for us all, simplistically blaming the Other as the cause of conflict is probably not the best way to acquire that focus.

[cpwm17]

5. Since religions are objectively false, often with religious texts that promote harmful behavior,

I don't see religions as a good thing.

Religion can be an excuse for war and violence, still most violence and wars are much more about other issues than religion. People can always come up with other excuses than religion for such selfish behavior.

Staks Rosch, who wrote this piece, seems to support Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris (evident from his other writings), both neocons. No religion was needed to cause their bad behavior. They have their own selfish reasons.

Staks Rosch wrote:

We could be building moon bases and Martian colonies. We could be building generation ships to reach the newly discovered habitable planet Wolf 1061c. But instead, we have to fight religious terrorists who faithfully believe that their God demands satisfaction.

Well, much of the terrorism against us comes as a result of our fighting. Our warring is making things far worse. We don't have to do any of this crap.

Staks Rosch calls himself a "humanist", whatever that is in reality. From my experience, many them clearly like war. I noticed that years ago before there were "new atheists" – who also often like war.

We should skip the meaningless labels and also reject religion. We should just follow the Golden Rule. That's all we need to do right. When you attach a label or religion to yourself, the rest of mankind becomes the other. That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it.

[rug]

6. You're confusing particlar religious claims with the notion that religion is therefore "false".

To embrace that, you need to prove or disprove the claim that there is a god in the first place. Which is patently impossible. We're left with a difference of opinion. Intellectual honesty requires we be honest and as accurate as possible in that disagreement.

[cpwm17]

7. Definition of religion from Merriam Webster:

Last edited Tue Jan 12, 2016, 01:20 AM - Edit history (4)

- the belief in a god or in a group of gods

- an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods

- an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group

There is zero evidence for any god and no reason to believe that such a critter is even remotely likely. A god is a huge step backwards from an answer for how we got here. Plus, all of the particular claims consistently made about this god are self-contradictory.

For life on this planet, evolution has allowed complex animated life to evolve from much simpler life forms which originally started from chemistry – the more complex comes from the less complex.

In religion it is the opposite: the less complex comes from the more complex – god creates everything. But where did this god come from and how does it poof everything into existence? How is this god an explanation for anything? God is no different than claiming everything came into existence by magic.

Let's think of all the potential starting points for all of existence. What would be far more likely? A large existence made with dumb matter and energy or the most complex thing imaginable: a god.

For the sake of argument, let's pretend that a god could potentially be possible. How many parameters would have to be set just right for this god to exist? For such amazing superpowers, it would have to be many. How did all those parameters get set just right?

We don't need to believe the impossible to get some understanding on how we got here. There is a huge or infinite existence out there in our Universe and very likely far more beyond our Universe. A lot is going to happen in such a large existence. It may all start with dumb matter and energy, but this dumb matter and energy plays a lot of lottery tickets and occasionally some really interesting things can happen – like life on this planet.

[rug]

8. Definition of god from Merriam Webster:

1 capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as
a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe
2 : a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality

Find the measure of "perfect goodness" and you'll find your evidence, or lack thereof.

To save time, you won't. There is no natural measure of supernatural attributes.

The evidence argument against the notion of god fails every time because the test for the evidence cannot be designed. The best argument against god is in philosophy.

[cpwm17]

9. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

I'm sure you've heard it before. When there is zero evidence for such a bold claim, it can be disregarded without any further thought.

the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe

Such a critter does not exist since this particular claim is self-contradictory. The Universe is far from perfect so this god doesn't exist.

a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality.

That's a vague and not very useful definition, but there is still zero evidence for anything like that.

[rug]

10. Precisely. It is evidence of a different kind altogether.

Evidence used to determine the species of fruit fly is useless in determining the existence of god, as opposed to a religious claim, say, the Deluge.

A simple denial of the existence of a god, a "perfect being", is neither evidence nor argument, particularly when it's a post hoc propter hoc argument.

Like it or not, the question of the existence of god is not a matter of science but philosophy.

[cpwm17]

11. What is this "evidence of a different kind" that you speak?

I don't find arbitrarily accepting the logically impossible, because of philosophy, a remotely good reason to believe in anything.

[rug]

12. I think if you are demanding evidence you shold define what type of evidence is acceptable.

I'm simply pointing ot that the "ordinary evidence" standard is inapplicable.

In the end, belief is not is not a hypothesis subject to test. (How would one even configure the test?) There are a lot of reasons to reject it but I don't think "lack of evidence" is one of them.