| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/23/2011 05:29:47 PM · #526 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
When I say "moral systems held by atheists" I guess I mainly mean "excluding all religious moral systems". |
Since atheists believe that modern religions derive from human-created mythologies (and not divine inspiration) there is no particular reason for them to reject all "religious" moral values, any more than any other rules we've developed over time to make societies function "better." I'm absolutely sure that plenty of atheists think "Thou shalt not kill" is a pretty good program for the vast majority of the population to follow.
BTW: Plenty of Jews today will eat bacon and shrimp ... Jews do seem to have a more rational relationship with their religion -- pig farms in "Holy Land" are built entirely on elevated wooden platforms, because the law specifies that no pig shall reside "on the soil" of Israel ...
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Bzzzt. It's expressedly mentioned that they give more to secular charities. |
I wonder how many of those are arts organizations (e.g. symphony) and the like vs programs which directly serve the disadvantaged (food and shelter).
Also, I think your average is going to be skewed, because it seems somewhat doubtful to me that people can rise to the apex of economic or political power if openly atheist -- seems to me the last lineup of Repiblican candidates (12 of them?) all declared the Bible as their "favorite" book ... it seems so odd to be celebrating the establishment of democratic governements in the Middle Eaat, while some seem so ready to impose a theocracy based on "Christian Sharia" here at home ... :-(
Message edited by author 2011-02-23 17:41:37. |
|
|
|
02/23/2011 05:30:30 PM · #527 |
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
... but, of course, the reason pigs are deemed unclean is because God/scripture says so. Any rational justifications for proscribing eating pork are ad hoc rationalizations for the religiously proscribed conduct, not the reason they are proscribed in the first place. |
Actually, that's backwards. BECAUSE the foods were unclean, and BECAUSE the priests wanted to protect the health of their peoples, they put these proscriptions into their code. Some will argue that "God told them to do it", other, more "realistic" people like me will argue that the priests were engaged in social engineering, but the fact remains that before refrigeration, pork and shellfish were very dangerous food products in a hot climate.
R. |
|
|
|
02/23/2011 05:31:14 PM · #528 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Kelli:
Maybe this will help you Doc, maybe it won't but I'll try to explain this (and bear with me as I'm not good with the written word). I personally don't consider the ability to tell right from wrong as "morals" to begin with. I've never not done something because "it was against my morals" though I've not done stuff "because it just doesn't feel right". When I decide if something is right or wrong I take several factors into consideration first. 1st, is it legal. No? I won't do it. Yes, then 2nd would be is it benefical to either myself, my family or the person I'm going to do it for. And 3rd would be does it harm anyone and/or any thing and will it make me feel good/bad. Sometimes I go by gut feel (like I'd never even consider eating a gorilla because to me they seem just a step away from being human). But basically I make my decisions as they come along. I don't sit and ponder "what ifs" because it's just not my nature. I don't have a list of things in my head all the time that I need to follow. And I'm certainly not following anyone's orders (except for the law). Does that explain anything? And the reason I think people are getting so frustrated with this is if you're not following orders (like God's law) then every person's list of right and wrong will vary. |
I think that was well said. I understand what you mean, anyway. Can I ask what you WOULD consider to be "morals"? What is the definition? We're probably just semantically different. I'd say that everything you described is "morality". So if we just want to disagree on the word, then that's fine. That's just a superficial argument. |
Maybe it is just semantics, but I grew up with my grandfather telling me I had no morals because I didn't believe in God (Yes, I've been an atheist since I was a kid). To me "morals" is a list of things you can/can't do because of your religion. And I grew up in a very mixed religion family. |
|
|
|
02/23/2011 05:33:13 PM · #529 |
Some of the pertinent data, which is quite robust:
The data show that if two people ΓΆ€” one religious and the other secular ΓΆ€” are identical in every other way, the secular person is 23 percentage points less likely to give than the religious person and 26 points less likely to volunteer.
To put this into perspective, religious people are 33 percent of the population but make 52 percent of donations and 45 percent of times volunteered. Secular people are 26 percent of the population but contribute 13 percent of the dollars and 17 percent of the times volunteered.
Some people might object to my conflation here of religious and nonreligious charity. One might argue, for example, that religious charity is more likely to take place for non-altruistic reasons than is nonreligious giving and volunteering: Religious people might give because of social pressure, for personal gain (such as stashing away rewards in Heaven), or to finance the services that they themselves consume, such as sacramental activities. Therefore, disparities in charity might disappear when we only consider explicitly nonreligious giving and volunteering. The sccbs data do not support this hypothesis, however: Religious people are more generous than secular people with nonreligious causes as well as with religious ones. While 68 percent of the total population gives (and 51 percent volunteers) to nonreligious causes each year, religious people are 10 points more likely to give to these causes than secularists (71 percent to 61 percent) and 21 points more likely to volunteer (60 percent to 39 percent). For example, religious people are 7 points more likely than secularists to volunteer for neighborhood and civic groups, 20 points more likely to volunteer to help the poor or elderly, and 26 points more likely to volunteer for school or youth programs. It seems fair to say that religion engenders charity in general ΓΆ€” including nonreligious charity.
|
|
|
|
02/23/2011 05:37:50 PM · #530 |
|
|
|
02/23/2011 05:44:18 PM · #531 |
| So in your little world Shannon you are telling me the poor secularist is so willing to give his time and money if only someone would let him know where to give it? Boo hoo for the little secularist. I can't imagine such an awful scenario. It must feel terrible to be so helpless. |
|
|
|
02/23/2011 05:53:12 PM · #532 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Actually, that's backwards. BECAUSE the foods were unclean, and BECAUSE the priests wanted to protect the health of their peoples, they put these proscriptions into their code. Some will argue that "God told them to do it", other, more "realistic" people like me will argue that the priests were engaged in social engineering, but the fact remains that before refrigeration, pork and shellfish were very dangerous food products in a hot climate. |
I agree with you about the realistic origin of the proscription, but the proscription survives because there are at least some believers who don't think realistically and believe that the proscription came not from their priest, but from their God. Those who continue to abstain from eating pork do so because they believe that their God doesn't want them to.
|
|
|
|
02/23/2011 05:57:41 PM · #533 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
... BECAUSE the foods were unclean, and BECAUSE the priests wanted to protect the health of their peoples, they put these proscriptions into their code. Some will argue that "God told them to do it", other, more "realistic" people like me will argue that the priests were engaged in social engineering, but the fact remains that before refrigeration, pork and shellfish were very dangerous food products in a hot climate.
R. |
I believe the health issues have more to do with the presence of parasites (trichinosis, "red tide", etc.) than with a lack of refrigeration.
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
...Those who continue to abstain from eating pork do so because they believe that their God doesn't want them to. |
Many secular Jews will do so more because continuing to practice (some of) the rituals is important to maintaining their familial/tribal identities, than from any consideration of Divine will.
Message edited by author 2011-02-23 18:04:31. |
|
|
|
02/23/2011 06:01:34 PM · #534 |
Originally posted by Kelli:
Maybe it is just semantics, but I grew up with my grandfather telling me I had no morals because I didn't believe in God (Yes, I've been an atheist since I was a kid). To me "morals" is a list of things you can/can't do because of your religion. And I grew up in a very mixed religion family. |
OK, well, if morality is "...because of religion" then it's pretty obvious why you don't engage in that "morality". :) I'd say that's a pretty restrictive definition and certainly not one that is used in the academic circles that like to argue about this stuff. But it does explain your answer quite nicely. |
|
|
|
02/23/2011 06:02:35 PM · #535 |
Hey everybody! The sky is blue.
(Just wanna see who will argue with me no matter what I say... :)) |
|
|
|
02/23/2011 06:07:43 PM · #536 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
So in your little world Shannon you are telling me the poor secularist is so willing to give his time and money if only someone would let him know where to give it? Boo hoo for the little secularist. I can't imagine such an awful scenario. It must feel terrible to be so helpless. |
I actually think there is something to this. People are busy and it is easy to get caught up in your own life and concerns unless there is some external mechanism for focusing good intentions into positive actions.
One generally positive externality that religion does provide is a community and an organized social structure. If you are involved with a community of like-minded individuals, are being reminded of the community's commitment to charity, being provided with direction on how and where to give and you are concerned about your standing with that community, you will follow the social norms of the community and give to charity.
There are lots of atheists who have pointed out this exact downside to being a non-believer, the lack of a structured community. Not only do modern atheists not belong to churches/congregations, but there are fewer and fewer secular organizations that serve the same type of role (like the Elks and other fraternal lodges, other secular service organizations, political parties, etc.), or at least fewer and fewer people who are members of such organizations. There is a lot of interest in how non-believers might reconstruct institutions with similar positive externalities, but without the dogma, but its a hard nut to crack since (as this thread demonstrates) there is no shared belief system for atheists that can serve as the organizing framework.
Message edited by author 2011-02-23 18:10:03. |
|
|
|
02/23/2011 06:09:12 PM · #537 |
It's only blue because of the high proportion of oxygen -- if we keep on cranking out CO2 and methane at ever-increasing rates we may be able to change it ...
-Pedants-R-Us |
|
|
|
02/23/2011 06:15:51 PM · #538 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
So in your little world Shannon you are telling me the poor secularist is so willing to give his time and money if only someone would let him know where to give it? Boo hoo for the little secularist. I can't imagine such an awful scenario. It must feel terrible to be so helpless. |
People who work for large corporations that host toy drives donate more toys than those who don't. People who shop at malls around Christmas give more loose change to charity than those who don't. People exposed to little countertop displays with slots for quarters donate more money to those charities than people who don't. DUH. It has absolutely nothing to do with their willingness to give. If a blood drive at the local Red Cross wasn't noted in a church service or bulletin, then those congregation members wouldn't be any more likely to go than anyone else in the community. |
|
|
|
02/23/2011 06:19:51 PM · #539 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I believe the health issues have more to do with the presence of parasites (trichinosis, "red tide", etc.) than with a lack of refrigeration. |
That's true. I guess the parasites aren't much affected by refrigeration or lack of same. I wasn't really working on that answer LOL. Interestingly enough, in THIS day and age we have shellfish wardens closing down shellfish harvesting when there is water contamination, and we have USDA inspections virtually ensuring that the ere is no disease present in meat that's brought to the market, but back in THOSE days, of course, they had no such safeguards, and the religious authorities essentially WERE the civil authorities, so...
Gotta admire those old-world Jews for being centuries ahead of the curve in the public-health field, eh?
R. |
|
|
|
02/23/2011 06:22:16 PM · #540 |
| Do the statistics show how much of the charitable donations are to the church and its projects versus how much goes to secular charities? One might assume that if only the non church related charities were considered, the difference may be, well, different. Just a thought. Also,was the data segregated by type of religion? |
|
|
|
02/23/2011 06:22:17 PM · #541 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
It has absolutely nothing to do with their willingness to give. If a blood drive at the local Red Cross wasn't noted in a church service or bulletin, then those congregation members wouldn't be any more likely to go than anyone else in the community. |
Isn't that kind of missing the point? Isn't the REAL point that a congregation, collectively, is more charitable than the sum of its parts otherwise might be? Isn't that a valid argument FOR the persistence of organized religion (and, for that matter, organized United Way giving), that it provides a unifying force that helps focus its members' efforts in worthwhile directions?
R.
Message edited by author 2011-02-23 18:23:11. |
|
|
|
02/23/2011 06:23:29 PM · #542 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
...Those who continue to abstain from eating pork do so because they believe that their God doesn't want them to. |
Many secular Jews will do so more because continuing to practice (some of) the rituals is important to maintaining their familial/tribal identities, than from any consideration of Divine will. |
Yes, but those secular Jews who do so do not believe that those who do eat pork are committing a "sin." |
|
|
|
02/23/2011 06:26:34 PM · #543 |
| What is a secular Jew? (Serious question,) |
|
|
|
02/23/2011 06:34:22 PM · #544 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Isn't the REAL point that a congregation, collectively, is more charitable than the sum of its parts otherwise might be? Isn't that a valid argument FOR the persistence of organized religion (and, for that matter, organized United Way giving), that it provides a unifying force that helps focus its members' efforts in worthwhile directions? |
It's an argument for WHY organized religion is persistent, but not necessarily and argument FOR organized religion. I think its entirely a truism that people go to church for lots of reasons, not just belief in a particular faith, and that people get various benefits (religious and secular) for participating in religious communities. As my daddy used to say, "if only the people who believed in God came to church on Sunday, the pews would be mighty empty."
The challenge for secular society is to provide organizations that provide the same type of unifying structure that provides the same type of secular benefits that are currently most generally provided as incidentals to religious organizations.
|
|
|
|
02/23/2011 06:46:21 PM · #545 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Isn't that kind of missing the point? Isn't the REAL point that a congregation, collectively, is more charitable than the sum of its parts otherwise might be? |
The congregation isn't any more charitable than other people, it's just that charities benefit from having an organization to appeal and remind their members. A charity might appeal to UPS or IBM employees rather than those at Uncle Clem's Broom Barn for the same reason. Assuming UPS employees are more charitable than Clem's is a spurious correlation, and we wouldn't fault the latter for being inherently less charitable... which is what Jason was trying to do:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
It appears there is a correlation between religious belief (as a proxy of God-belief) and the moral weight given to generosity. Perhaps you might find some hair to split, but I think it is a clear-cut example of how you could separate "religious people" (ie. believers in gods) and "non-religious people" (ie. non-believers) along a specific moral line. |
Message edited by author 2011-02-23 18:54:00. |
|
|
|
02/23/2011 07:10:31 PM · #546 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
What is a secular Jew? (Serious question,) |
It means different things to different people. But I'd say generally it's someone who identifies with the Jewish culture and history, is of Jewish ancestry, but who either doesn't practice the religion or is a non-believer. |
|
|
|
02/23/2011 07:11:53 PM · #547 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
What is a secular Jew? (Serious question,) |
A Jewish person who enjoys BLTs and Christmas music (I know several). |
|
|
|
02/23/2011 07:16:01 PM · #548 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by Melethia:
What is a secular Jew? (Serious question,) |
It means different things to different people. But I'd say generally it's someone who identifies with the Jewish culture and history, is of Jewish ancestry, but who either doesn't practice the religion or is a non-believer. |
That's close enough for me too. For an entertaining introduction to Jewish culture and religion try reading the Rabbi Small mysteries by Harry Kemmelman (Friday the Rabbi Slept Late is the first in the series). |
|
|
|
02/23/2011 07:24:51 PM · #549 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
Do the statistics show how much of the charitable donations are to the church and its projects versus how much goes to secular charities? One might assume that if only the non church related charities were considered, the difference may be, well, different. Just a thought. Also,was the data segregated by type of religion? |
I quoted the answer to your first question:
Therefore, disparities in charity might disappear when we only consider explicitly nonreligious giving and volunteering. The sccbs data do not support this hypothesis, however: Religious people are more generous than secular people with nonreligious causes as well as with religious ones. While 68 percent of the total population gives (and 51 percent volunteers) to nonreligious causes each year, religious people are 10 points more likely to give to these causes than secularists (71 percent to 61 percent) and 21 points more likely to volunteer (60 percent to 39 percent).
I hadn't posted the answer to the second question, but yes it was and it didn't seem to make much difference:
The differences in charity between secular and religious people are dramatic. Religious people are 25 percentage points more likely than secularists to donate money (91 percent to 66 percent) and 23 points more likely to volunteer time (67 percent to 44 percent). And, consistent with the findings of other writers, these data show that practicing a religion is more important than the actual religion itself in predicting charitable behavior. For example, among those who attend worship services regularly, 92 percent of Protestants give charitably, compared with 91 percent of Catholics, 91 percent of Jews, and 89 percent from other religions.
Message edited by author 2011-02-23 19:25:06. |
|
|
|
02/23/2011 07:27:26 PM · #550 |
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
So in your little world Shannon you are telling me the poor secularist is so willing to give his time and money if only someone would let him know where to give it? Boo hoo for the little secularist. I can't imagine such an awful scenario. It must feel terrible to be so helpless. |
I actually think there is something to this. People are busy and it is easy to get caught up in your own life and concerns unless there is some external mechanism for focusing good intentions into positive actions. |
We're all busy, and wouldn't it just support the assertion that there may be different moral frameworks at work? If you value generosity more because of your moral system, then you are more likely to actually seek out giving despite your busy life. I don't think this is somehow an answer that explains away the data in a manner that makes it unlikely there is a difference between religious people and secular people.
Message edited by author 2011-02-23 19:27:50. |
|
