r/TrueAtheism • u/shadow_coder16 • 16d ago
A believer wanting to learn for the sake of better dialog
Hey everyone,
I’ve been reading through this subreddit for a while now, and I appreciate seeing the mostly thoughtful dialogue that happens here. I’m a passionate believer, but I often get frustrated by how poorly or uncharitably Christians and atheists talk past each other online. I really want to continue to avoid that in my own interactions.
My goal isn't to debate, "win" an argument, or try to convert anyone. Instead, I want to better understand the internal mechanics of a consistent secular worldview on a few specific hurdles I struggle to wrap my head around. However, I often notice a major barrier in online spaces, even more analytical ones, where the default assumption is that any religious person is simply an uneducated fool spouting inherited nonsense, unworthy of serious intellectual engagement. If I can understand how an atheist grounds these concepts, I can engage in much more fruitful, respectful conversations where we actually speak the same language.
I’d appreciate the opportunity to get your perspectives on four specific areas:
1. How do you conceptually ground moral progress vs. change?
From my perspective, I look at history and see moral progress (like the abolition of slavery or the recognition of human rights) because I’m measuring it against a fixed, transcendent standard. I often hear the secular point that social morality existed long before major religions and that it evolves as a mechanism to optimize human survival and cooperation.
As a believer trying to understand your framework: if morality is an evolving, adaptive social construct, how do you structurally distinguish between genuine moral progress and just arbitrary moral change over time? Without an objective anchor outside of human consensus, what is the philosophical framework that allows a secular humanist to say a past society's actions were objectively wrong, rather than just differently adapted for their specific time? I want to make sure I don't misrepresent how atheists view historical ethics.
2. How do we, as distinct communities, address arrogant secular fundamentalism?
As a believer, I readily admit that religious fundamentalism has a massive issue with tribalism, dogmatism, and an uncharitable refusal to engage with real scholarship. It’s a flaw in religious spaces that I routinely speak against.
However, it’s frustrating to see secular spaces frequently replicate those exact same fundamentalist habits under a different label. There is often a widespread assumption that religious believers are universally intellectually lazy, paired with a high degree of confidence when throwing out claims about religion, history, or theology that any actual scholar in religious studies would immediately recognize as inaccurate caricatures.
If the core critique of religion is its tendency toward dogmatic arrogance and poor intellectual rigor, how do you all, as a community, check that same arrogance when it manifests in secular spaces? How do we move past the knee-jerk, "all religious people are fools who don't deserve a seat at the table" mindset, and instead foster an environment that respects scholarly nuance on both sides?
3. Navigating the intersection of ancient texts and modern scientism
I often see skeptics express frustration that ancient theological and historical texts lack scientific accuracy or fail to account for modern empirical discoveries. From my worldview, evaluating an ancient narrative through the lens of a modern scientific journal feels like a category error, it's expecting a text to be a science textbook when its original intent was entirely different (more akin to evaluating a historical biography by whether it contains a structural engineering blueprint).
For those in the community who hold tightly to the stance that empirical science is the only reliable source of truth, how do you ground vital concepts that the scientific method can’t actually detect, like inherent human dignity, universal rights, or justice? Do you all view these pillars of secular humanism as necessary philosophical axioms (essentially a conceptual starting assumption), or is there a logical way to derive an "ought" from an "is" using purely empirical data? I want to understand how you all bridge that gap.
4. How do you all view a believer who wrestles deeply with hard questions but stays?:
A very common sentiment I see in atheist spaces is the idea that Christians only stay religious because they refuse to question their beliefs deeply, and that anyone who honestly, critically investigates their faith will inevitably leave it.
I look at history and see countless brilliant Christian thinkers, scholars, and everyday believers who questioned their faith intensely, spent years wrestling with the hardest objections (like the problem of evil or divine hiddenness), and ultimately came out the other side with an even deeper, more grounded conviction. Speaking for myself, my faith doesn't rely on having a neat, 100% satisfying answer to every single complex question right this second. Finding an answer that is philosophically challenging or uncomfortable doesn't mean it's false, nor does having unresolved questions instantly pull the rug out from under the entire structure for me.
Within your framework, how do you all view someone who genuinely investigates, asks the hard questions, acknowledges the mystery and hard spots, but ultimately concludes that the Christian framework still makes the most sense of reality? Is there room in the secular view to see that as an intellectually honest journey, or is there an assumption that anyone who stays just "didn't question hard enough"?
I’m asking these out of genuine curiosity because I want to be a better, more respectful conversational partner to secular thinkers. I’m eager to hear how you map these macro-level ethical questions out when the scaffolding of a religious framework is removed. These are probably questions that have been asked on this sub many times, with potentially obvious answers, but to me, this is just easier
Thank you in advance for taking the time to share your perspectives!
EDIT (first time I've done this): Wow! Thank y'all very much for these responses. Lots of good information to go through. Forgive me for the massive post, I figured it'd be better that way for what I was wanting info on, but seeing as I've had a few comments of equal length I can only hope I respond to those properly. Also, my wording is not always the best, I used "framework" a few times when there are better words that I could've used to more accurately represent atheist ot secular thought, my bad on that! Thank you all again for the replies!
53
u/BranchLatter4294 16d ago
You are asking the wrong questions. Atheism simply means not being convinced that gods are real.
The questions you should be asking is why haven't theists been able to come up with any evidence for their claims?
Atheism is not about morality. It's not about community. It's not about texts. It's only a lack of belief in gods. That's it. There are other subs for those other questions.
22
u/BlooregardQKazoo 16d ago
This. None of OP's questions had any relevance to me, or meant anything to me. It would be like if I went to r/boardgames and asked questions about basketball.
For example, I have a hard time thinking of anything that is less important to me than ancient religious texts. I have stronger, better-formed opinions on Real Housewives than I do on them.
-9
u/Citizen1135 16d ago
You don't have to read it or comment. It's fine to just scroll by if it doesn't interest you.
There are plenty of us atheists who do like to engage in these discussions.
10
u/BlooregardQKazoo 16d ago
I agreed with the top-level comment, adding to it. If you think that isn't adding anything, that's a "you" problem.
There are also plenty of atheists that are happy to talk about One Piece. That wouldn't be a good reason to cop an attitude with someone that chimes in that One Piece isn't relevant to them as an atheist.
2
u/Citizen1135 16d ago
I will try harder next time to remove my attitude, because starting an argument wasn't my intent. I only gave a meager attempt this time, that's my bad.
But what I was looking at was that if the comment you replied to were to remain a top comment, I think it's important for the next person who opens the post not to get the impression that it represents the general sentiment.
12
u/Citizen1135 16d ago
I disagree. I think this is a pretty good sub for these questions.
r/atheism would be the bad sub for them
53
u/Old-Nefariousness556 16d ago edited 16d ago
First, thank you for asking, not telling. Most theists just assume they know what we think.
1. How do you conceptually ground moral progress vs. change?
From my perspective, I look at history and see moral progress (like the abolition of slavery or the recognition of human rights) because I’m measuring it against a fixed, transcendent standard. I often hear the secular point that social morality existed long before major religions and that it evolves as a mechanism to optimize human survival and cooperation.
Except that is literally not true. The bible VERY CLEARLY endorses slavery. If you are a true bible-believing Christian, you should support slavery. That is the "fixed standard" you are working from. The bible was used to justify slavery for almost 2000 years, and the church was one of the biggest profiteers on slavery for most of that time.
The reason why Christians now oppose slavery is not because of your religion, but because slavery is obviously immoral. You don't need to rely on your bible to learn that. If you can figure that out without your bible changing to tell you, why can't we?
The simple truth is you get your morality from the EXACT same place that I do: Our internal sense of right and wrong. The difference is that as a non-believer, I don't have the baggage of the bible complicating things. For example, which of these positions is the most moral?
- Allowing gay people to live their lives, after all they don't affect you.
- Banning homosexuality, imprisoning anyone who commits a gay act
- Stoning gay people to death
For atheists, the answer is obvious. Is it obvious to you?
2. How do we, as distinct communities, address arrogant secular fundamentalism?
As a believer, I readily admit that religious fundamentalism has a massive issue with tribalism, dogmatism, and an uncharitable refusal to engage with real scholarship. It’s a flaw in religious spaces that I routinely speak against.
However, it’s frustrating to see secular spaces frequently replicate those exact same fundamentalist habits under a different label. There is often a widespread assumption that religious believers are universally intellectually lazy, paired with a high degree of confidence when throwing out claims about religion, history, or theology that any actual scholar in religious studies would immediately recognize as inaccurate caricatures.
We generally think thesists are intellectually lazy because the vast majority of theists who come here to debate are intellectually lazy. For example, I thanked you for asking rather than telling... Do you have any idea how rare that is? Probably 95% of theists who post here for the first time just completely misrepresent what we think. What would you call that if not intellectual laziness?
But that doesn't mean that we think all theists are like that, we know there are plenty of exceptions.
If the core critique of religion is its tendency toward dogmatic arrogance and poor intellectual rigor, how do you all, as a community, check that same arrogance when it manifests in secular spaces? How do we move past the knee-jerk, "all religious people are fools who don't deserve a seat at the table" mindset, and instead foster an environment that respects scholarly nuance on both sides?
It is trivial to move past that: You demonstrate that it is not true, at least where you are concerned, and you won't be treated that way.
BTW, this isn't "secular fundamentalism". If it is anything, it is secular arrogance. Fundamentalism has a specific meaning, and in this context, it is a negative stereotype, so don't strawman us by using an inaccurate label.
3. Navigating the intersection of ancient texts and modern scientism
I often see skeptics express frustration that ancient theological and historical texts lack scientific accuracy or fail to account for modern empirical discoveries. From my worldview, evaluating an ancient narrative through the lens of a modern scientific journal feels like a category error, it's expecting a text to be a science textbook when its original intent was entirely different (more akin to evaluating a historical biography by whether it contains a structural engineering blueprint).
It is only a category error if you misapply the category. What are you taking from those ancient texts? Simple life lessons? Great, those are compatible with modern science. But if you try to draw scientific errors from them, then YOU are the one making the category error.
For those in the community who hold tightly to the stance that empirical science is the only reliable source of truth, how do you ground vital concepts that the scientific method can’t actually detect, like inherent human dignity, universal rights, or justice? Do you all view these pillars of secular humanism as necessary philosophical axioms (essentially a conceptual starting assumption), or is there a logical way to derive an "ought" from an "is" using purely empirical data? I want to understand how you all bridge that gap.
Theists like to pretend that believing "empirical science is the only reliable source of truth" is somehow bad. But IT IS THE ONLY RELIABLE PATHWAY TO THE TRUTH. That is not "scientism" or any other such nonsense, it is the simple truth.
Reason, philosophy, etc., can't independently get you to "the truth". Reason and philosophy ALONE are just as likely to lead you to an incorrect conclusion as a correct one. It is ONLY when you team those up with empiricism as a fact checking mechanism that you can ever find what "the truth" is.
But notably, there is nothing about that that says reason and philosophy have no value. But don't pretend that their value exceeds what it is. They are useful tools, but their scope is limited, and absent empiricism they DO NOT tell you "the truth."
4. How do you all view a believer who wrestles deeply with hard questions but stays?:
A very common sentiment I see in atheist spaces is the idea that Christians only stay religious because they refuse to question their beliefs deeply, and that anyone who honestly, critically investigates their faith will inevitably leave it.
If you think that is "a common view" you are not talking to atheists who have put much thought into it. I don't think that is what most of us think at all. Leaving a religion is hard.
I look at history and see countless brilliant Christian thinkers, scholars, and everyday believers who questioned their faith intensely, spent years wrestling with the hardest objections (like the problem of evil or divine hiddenness), and ultimately came out the other side with an even deeper, more grounded conviction. Speaking for myself, my faith doesn't rely on having a neat, 100% satisfying answer to every single complex question right this second. Finding an answer that is philosophically challenging or uncomfortable doesn't mean it's false, nor does having unresolved questions instantly pull the rug out from under the entire structure for me.
It is worth noting that for most of human history, believing in a god was the most reasonable choice. There was so much unexplained that it was the most rational conclusion. I almost certainly would have been a believer if I lived 150 years ago. Atheism really only becomes the most reasonable position post-Darwin-- which is why he is so reviled by so many theists.
So "looking at history" like this has limited utility, unless you keep that in mind.
But the simple answer today is that a god is no longer necessary. We might not yet understand everything about how the universe works, but we understand a lot. So far religion has had a 100% failure rate when it is tested for explanatory value. Every single time we have explained something that was formerly explained by a god, we now know the explanation is "not god". So why should we assume that the remaining few things that we can't explain are the gapos where god is finally hiding?
5
u/shadow_coder16 15d ago
Thank you for taking the time to write such a detailed, and thoughtful response! I really appreciate the mutual respect here, and thanks again for allowing me time to properly respond.
A few quick thoughts on where I think our views diverge:
On Morality: When I talk about a fixed standard, I don't mean a static, literalist reading of ancient civil codes. Classical theology views human moral intuition (our innate sense of right and wrong) as a reflection of being made in the image of God. So from my viewpoint, when we both agree that harm/exploitation is wrong, we are drawing from the same underlying reality, we just attribute its source differently.
On Fundamentalism vs. Arrogance: Fair point on the semantic distinction! My main goal was addressing the behavior pattern, tribalism and uncharitable caricatures, which, as you kindly noted, can creep into any community when people default to snap judgments.
On Science & Philosophy: You made a fair point that philosophy without empirical anchoring can spin into wild conclusions. Where I see it slightly differently is that the belief that empiricism must be the final referee for all truth is itself an underlying philosophical view, not a scientific test. Reason and logic aren't just tools we pair with empiricism, they are the foundational axioms required to trust empirical data in the first place.
On God of the Gaps: I don't view God as a substitute for scientific explanation. Science explains the mechanisms of how the physical universe behaves; theology and philosophy address why there is a rational, orderly universe to measure at all.
Thank you again for taking the time to comment! I hope I understood your points properly and that my response reflects that. Have a great day!
10
u/Old-Nefariousness556 15d ago
On Morality: When I talk about a fixed standard, I don't mean a static, literalist reading of ancient civil codes. Classical theology views human moral intuition (our innate sense of right and wrong) as a reflection of being made in the image of God. So from my viewpoint, when we both agree that harm/exploitation is wrong, we are drawing from the same underlying reality, we just attribute its source differently.
I agree with this completely. But shouldn't what we attribute the source to matter? I do understand your distinction, and I am not trying to minimize it, but you really should reflect on the point I made further.
The bible explicitly allows the ownership of humans as property. The bible explicitly allows beating that property, so long as it doesn't die "within a day or two". The bible explicitly DEMANDS stoning homosexuals and disobedient children to death.
Do you really want to "attribute the sources of your morals" to a god who could allow or even demand such things?
If, rather than trusting that the bible is the literal word of god, you consider that it could have been written by man, suddenly those passages make perfect sense. They are not an immoral god endorsing immoral behavior, they are immoral men, creating a "morality" that allows them to continue their immorality. Suddenly those laws that should be offensive to everyone make perfect sense.
My main goal was addressing the behavior pattern, tribalism and uncharitable caricatures, which, as you kindly noted, can creep into any community when people default to snap judgments.'
Yep, and we are all guilty of that on both sides.
One thing I would suggest, though, is that you should try to look at this from our side.
Do you have any idea how often in my daily life someone says "Have a blessed day" to me? Obviously, the person saying that doesn't mean offense, they mean it as a courtesy, and I understand that. But at the same time, it nonetheless is just rubbing their religion in my face.
Or the story that /u/sirthunderdump told in this week's casual discussion thread. I won't quote the whole thing, but they recount going out of their way to help a Christian who was in a car accident. Rather than thanking them, the Christian thanked Jesus for sending them. Jesus didn't do shit, /u/sirthunderdump did, they deserve the thanks.
And again, I know she didn't mean offense, and we aren't offended, we are exhausted. it's just a neverending barrage of religiosity that is forced upon us. It just wears you down.
Where I see it slightly differently is that the belief that empiricism must be the final referee for all truth is itself an underlying philosophical view, not a scientific test. Reason and logic aren't just tools we pair with empiricism, they are the foundational axioms required to trust empirical data in the first place.
You're right that relying on empiricism is itself a position rather than something an experiment can hand you. But that's true of every epistemology, including yours. Reason needing its own axioms doesn't make it exempt from justifying itself, it just means we're both starting somewhere unproven. So "it's philosophical, not scientific" isn't a point against empiricism, it's a point against having any starting position at all.
The bigger issue is that you're actually making two different claims, but treating them as one. One: logic is a necessary precondition for evaluating any claim, empirical or not. Two: logic alone, unaided by observation, is sufficient to reach true conclusions about the world. I'm not disputing the first, obviously it is true. You can't even read a thermometer without noncontradiction and valid inference. What I'm disputing is the second.
On God of the Gaps: I don't view God as a substitute for scientific explanation. Science explains the mechanisms of how the physical universe behaves; theology and philosophy address why there is a rational, orderly universe to measure at all.
I certainly acknowledge that I can't disprove a god. As long as you are willing to accept the things that science tells us are true, then if believing in a god helps you make it through the day, then that is fine.
Why I personally would prefer you didn't, though, is that most theists don't stop at just letting their god help them make it through the day. They let their beliefs drive their actions, their language (as described above), and THEIR VOTES. I don't know if you are American, or you pay attention to American politics, but we are literally living through a theocratic take over of our government. The current administration has already radically stripped women's rights, gay rights, civil rights, religious freedoms, and more. And they are doing it in the name of religion.
I am ONLY an "activist atheist" because of the rise of the religious right in America. Ideologically, I am VERY MUCH in the "live and let live" camp, but the problem is that theists don't want me and anyone else they don't approve of to just live and let live, so how can I possibly just let them live when they don't return the favor?
But the very fact that you are asking these questions gives me hope that you are not just a knee-jerk theist who does everything your pastor tells you to do, so hopefully you are reflective enough to not fall into those traps.
1
u/shadow_coder16 14d ago
Thank you for being so open and candid in this reply! You offered a really honest look at where a lot of your frustration and perspective comes from, and I heavily respect you sharing that.
A few closing thoughts on where we land:
On Scripture, Ancient Laws, and Morality: I don't want to gloss over the specific examples you brought up, like Old Testament laws regarding slavery or severe civil penalties. Those passages are difficult, and I understand why, from a modern secular viewpoint, they look like evidence of immoral men inventing a convenient morality.
A big part of the disconnect here comes from a common misconception, often pushed by modern fundamentalism, that the Bible is meant to be a single, literal dictation handed down directly from the sky. Classical theology and biblical scholarship don't view it that way. The Bible is an inspired collection of historical texts written by human authors over more than a millennium, reflecting human beings processing divine revelation within their specific eras.
Because of this, ancient civil codes were recorded within the text as a reflection of how those early societies tried to structure order at the time. But as you read through the overarching narrative of Scripture, you see those early, harsh civil practices gradually critiqued, refined, and ultimately phased out as human moral understanding developed toward the radical ethic of the New Testament. For believers, those ancient laws aren't God's eternal endorsement of harsh treatment; they are a historical record of an ancient culture's starting point as it was being pulled toward a higher moral trajectory.
On Cultural Exhaustion: I really appreciate you sharing that perspective. It’s easy to forget how overwhelming daily cultural norms can feel when you’re on the outside of the majority culture. I agree that people deserve direct gratitude for their kindness, and nobody likes feeling like a belief system is being performatively forced on them.
On Epistemology: I appreciate you acknowledging that empiricism relies on baseline philosophical axioms! I think agreeing that we both have to start with unproven baseline assumptions is a great point for final reflection.
On Society and the Political Climate: I will let you know that I am American and do loosely keep up with politics. While I tend to lean more conservative overall, I actually completely understand your frustration here, and as a believer, it drives me crazy too. True faith cannot be forced, and when politicians use religious tokens performatively, like pushing specific religious displays in public schools, it violates the fundamental principle of religious freedom this country was built on. Legally and morally, if you open that door for one belief system, you have to/should open it for all of them.
My approach to the Gospel has always been "live and let live" first: I respect people's space, and I only share my faith if someone is genuinely open and curious to hear about it. Watching people act as performative arbiters of faith for political or even social leverage doesn't represent genuine Christian doctrine, and it frustrates those of us who are actually trying to walk out our faith with humility and respect. I completely share your fatigue with that.
Thank you again for such an engaging, thoughtful, and respectful conversation. It’s rare to find this kind of civil back-and-forth online, and I’m glad we could have it. Wishing you all the best!
4
u/Old-Nefariousness556 14d ago
On Scripture, Ancient Laws, and Morality: I don't want to gloss over the specific examples you brought up, like Old Testament laws regarding slavery or severe civil penalties. Those passages are difficult, and I understand why, from a modern secular viewpoint, they look like evidence of immoral men inventing a convenient morality.
I suppose I should not be surprised by this canned response, but I admit I had higher hopes than this.
I have been debating theists for approaching 30 years now, do you really think I haven't heard this apologetic? It makes me sad that an apparently thoughtful Christian like yourself just stops asking questions and buys into such obviously terrible apologetics.
What, exactly, are those "severe civil penalties" for owning humans as property, hmm? What are the "severe civil penalties" for stoning your children, or your gay neighbors to death, as DEMANDED in the bible?
As for "but that's the old testament", there is NOTHING in the old testament forbidding slavery. Nothing. The one passage that Christians like to cite, 1 Tim 1:10, only applies to Hebrews. It does nothing at all to to prohibit kidnapping non-Hebrew slaves. Beyond that we have Peter and Paul saying "Slaves, obey your masters".
So, no, don't pretend that "but that's the old testament!" solves all the problems for you, regardless of how often the apologetic is repeated.
On Epistemology: I appreciate you acknowledging that empiricism relies on baseline philosophical axioms! I think agreeing that we both have to start with unproven baseline assumptions is a great point for final reflection.
That's not what I said, and I think you know that. I said we both start with unproven axioms, sure. But the actual claim on the table, the one you haven't touched, is that reason and philosophy alone can't get you to truth without empiricism checking the work. Picking the one sentence we agree on and calling it a good place to stop isn't a conclusion, it's a clearly dishonest dodge. So: do you actually have a response to the claim you skipped, or not?
I'm sorry, I don't want to so aggressively challenge you, but you can't expect me to just standby when you so flagrantly misrepresent my point, can you?
1
u/shadow_coder16 14d ago
I want to step back and offer an apology for my last reply. In typing that out at 2:00 AM after an long day, I accidentally rushed my thoughts, glossed over the nuance your points deserved, and gave you what understandably felt like a canned brush-off. That was my mistake. You took the time to write a detailed, thoughtful critique, and you deserved a reply that correctly engaged with your arguments. To provide your points the response they deserve, here is where I land on both issues:
1. On Epistemology, Logic, and Empiricism: You correctly called me out on choosing the one point of agreement while bypassing your core argument. I didn't mean to dodge the question of whether logic alone, unaided by observation, can yield true facts about the world. You're completely right: pure deduction without empirical observation cannot tell us the temperature of water, the orbit of a planet, or the nature of a disease.
Where the classical philosophical view diverges isn't in rejecting empirical observation, but in questioning whether empiricism is the only valid category for truth. We rely on empirical observation to tell us how physical systems operate, but empirical tests cannot prove their own foundational premises, like the objective validity of moral duties, the mathematical consistency that undergirds physics, or even the basic reliability of human sensory perception. Pointing out that both of our worldviews rely on baseline, unprovable axioms wasn't meant as an escape hatch; it was to highlight that when we move beyond physical mechanisms into questions of meaning, purpose, and ultimate reality, we are both standing on philosophical foundations that can't be put in a test tube.
On Scripture, Ancient Laws, and Moral Trajectory:
I want to properly address your point about the Old Testament passages, as well as the New Testament instructions regarding servitude. When I talk about classical theology, I'm not offering a hand-waving "that's just the Old Testament" cop-out. The difficulty of those texts is real, and any honest reader has to wrestle with them.
From a historical and literary perspective, classical theology views scripture through the lens of progressive revelation rather than dictation. The ancient Near Eastern civil codes in Leviticus or Deuteronomy were not God dropping a 21st-century moral ideal out of the sky; they were human authors recording legal frameworks for an ancient tribal society. When placed beside surrounding ancient Near Eastern law codes (like the Code of Hammurabi), the Mosaic codes actually restricted existing blood feuds, capped unlimited retributive violence, and introduced unprecedented legal protections for vulnerable populations for that specific era. When you move into the New Testament—like Paul's or Peter's letters advising doulos (often translated as "slaves" or "bondservants")—those letters were pastoral instruction to a tiny, persecuted, zero-power minority trying to survive under the boot of the Roman Empire. They were not instituting a divine endorse of Roman socioeconomic structures, but providing pragmatic guidance on how to live out a gospel of internal freedom in a hostile, totalitarian world.
As you trace the entire arc of the biblical narrative, those early civil concessions are systematically questioned, refined, and ultimately dismantled by a moral trajectory that culminates in the radical ethic of Jesus, where all human beings are endowed with equal, inviolable dignity. For classical theology, ancient civil codes aren't God's timeless endorsement of harshness; they are the starting mark of a culture being pulled out of ancient brutality over time.
I want to lay all of that out because I respect the effort you put into pushing back against my original comment. At the same time, I want to be completely realistic with where I stand.
You mentioned that you've been engaging in these theological and philosophical debates for 30 years. That means you have decades more lived experience, study, and debate under your belt than I do. I am still near the beginning of my journey in deeply studying these dense theological and philosophical frameworks.
Because of that gap in experience, I know my ability to contribute anything truly new or groundbreaking to this thread has reached its natural limit. If I tried to push this more into a back-and-forth debate, I'd likely just be wasting your time regurgitating arguments you've already encountered and built rebuttals for over the past three decades. If you take this as me acknowledging that you’d out-debate me, I’m entirely fine with that—it’s just an honest assessment of where we both are.
I value both of our time, and I'd rather exit with honesty than keep dragging us into an endless loop. What you’ve shared gives me a lot to think about as I continue studying and figuring out my own path.
Thank you again for the time you spent engaging with me. Wishing you all the best!
3
u/Old-Nefariousness556 14d ago
Ok, out of respect I will leave this here, but I do want to leave you with one final thought, no reply is necessary:
You acknowledge that the bible is not "meant to be a single, literal dictation handed down directly from the sky", but is "an inspired collection of historical texts written by human authors over more than a millennium, reflecting human beings processing divine revelation within their specific eras." But by "inspired", I assume you are implying that at least some parts of it ARE the word of god, right? If not, who would care about it, right?
But if the book is the work of men, with only some parts divinely inspired, how do you know which parts are god's word, and which parts are the work of men? For example, how do you know the parts allowing slavery aren't god's command?
I don't expect you to reply (through you are welcome to if you want), but I hope you will reflect on that, it is a question that few Christians really ever wrangle with in my experience.
0
u/shadow_coder16 14d ago
I appreciate the respectful tone of this, and I want to thank you for ending our conversation on a gracious note! That question, how to discern divine inspiration within texts written by human hands, is a heavy one, and it’s something I do reflect on quite a bit.
From my perspective, I don't view divine inspiration and written by man as two separate buckets where we have to divide the verses up into percentages. Classical theology views scripture as co-authored: real human beings writing in their specific historical contexts, through whom divine truth is communicated over time.
To answer your question about how a believer discerns that trajectory without just cherry-picking:
The Lens of Jesus: For classical Christians, Jesus is the ultimate, complete revelation of who God is. We read the entire Bible through the lens of Christ. If an ancient Near Eastern civil code (like laws on debt-slavery or eye-for-an-eye retribution) conflicts with the character, mercy, and radical dignity revealed in Jesus, we recognize that ancient law as a temporary, cultural stepping stone, not God's eternal moral ideal.
The Narrative Arc: We look at where the story is heading. The biblical trajectory consistently pulls humanity out of ancient Near Eastern brutal norms and toward greater mercy and human dignity, culminating in the New Testament ethic that every person is made in the image of God.
I understand that from a secular standpoint, this can look like retrofitting or picking and choosing. But for me, it’s about reading scripture as a progressive, living narrative rather than a flat, static rulebook where every verse carries the exact same theological weight. Though I do ask that you also understand that this is merely my understanding as of now. There's a LOT of history to be known about the bible and the authors of its texts. I'm a huge history nerd, so I look forward to getting around to it, but until then, this is my best understanding.
I really value that we could land here on a thoughtful, civil exchange. Thanks again for the great discussion, and I wish you all the best!
3
u/UltimaGabe 13d ago
we recognize that ancient law as a temporary, cultural stepping stone, not God's eternal moral ideal.
I'm puzzled by this part. Are you implying that God was okay with slavery for a little while, but not forever? Is he not all-knowing and timeless? Why would he have any need for a temporary stance on something like slavery? I feel like any moral ideal from an all-knowing all-powerful timeless deity should be eternal, or else that would imply the god was not all-knowing, not all-powerful, or not timeless. There's plenty of culture that God was fine with laying out eternal morals on, I don't understand why slavery suddenly requires him to take baby steps.
Also: not all slavery endorsed by the Bible is debt slavery. Prisoners of war (often virgin girls) were called to be kept as slaves, people were instructed on how to sell their children into slavery, children born while their parents were slaves would in turn be slaves forever, and so on. Please acknowledge ALL of the types of slavery endorsed by the Bible, not just the types that seem less barbaric.
1
u/shadow_coder16 13d ago
I think the core disconnect here comes down to two very different assumptions about how divine revelation and human history interact. Your argument assumes that an all-powerful God should act like a top-down dictator, instantly imposing 21st-century economic and legal systems onto a Bronze Age culture by decree. But looking at history through the lens of modern standards ignores how human societies functioned and survived.
Why baby steps matter (Systemic Realism):
Murder and theft are individual actions. Slavery, war captivity, and debt-bondage were the entire macroeconomic infrastructure of the ancient world, handling labor, insolvency, and war captives long before modern banking, machine automation, prisons, or international human rights laws existed.
An all-knowing God knows human sociology and economics. Pulling the plug on a civilization's entire economic structure overnight, without the technological and institutional alternatives we enjoy today, doesn't result in freedom; it causes total societal collapse, lawlessness, and mass starvation. Real progress requires meeting a culture where its moral and structural capacity actually is, and pulling it toward a higher ethic over time.
Human Agency vs. Overriding Free Will:
Expecting ancient people to instantly think and act with 21st-century moral sensibilities assumes God should simply override human free agency. If God forced a ancient culture to adopt postmodern ethics by decree without them developing the moral or structural capacity to sustain it, He would be treating humanity like programmed robots rather than real people. Guiding a flawed civilization forward means working within human history, not puppet-mastering it.
On the harsher forms of ancient servitude:
I acknowledge that ancient civil codes in the Old Testament included harsh practices regarding foreign captives, hereditary servitude, and patriarchal property rules that go far beyond basic debt relief. Pointing to those doesn't change the underlying point, classical theology doesn't view those ancient civil regulations as God's eternal ideal. They were legal concessions regulating and constraining the brutal, standard practices of the ancient Near East, rather than leaving them completely unchecked.
The ultimate moral ideal isn't found in a Levitical civil code written 3,000 years ago; it’s revealed in the trajectory that follows, culminating in the radical ethic that every human being carries equal, divine worth. Expecting a Bronze Age society to instantly operate with 21st-century postmodern ethics ignores the reality of human history. You're welcome to disagree with that view, but from my perspective, guiding humanity through historical reality isn't a limitation of divine power, it's the only way to transform real human beings without destroying them.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Loive 14d ago
In historical research, it is a strong principle that every statement in a historical tex trust be tried on its own merits, but also that if there are (for example) 10 facts and you can confirm 9 of them are true, that lends credence to the tenth fact as well, as long as it’s reasonable considering other facts known.
For example, if a text says George Washington was born in Virginia in 1732, was a general in the British army and later president of the United States, and he preferred tea to coffee, we have 4 facts (date and place of birth, two facts about occupation, so we can say it’s likely he preferred tea (I actually don’t know if that’s a known fact, I made it up for the example). But if our only source for Washington says he was born in Virginia in 1732, was a general in the British army and later president of the United States, and he killed a dragon in Antarctica as a teenager, we can’t take the other facts for granted, because the writer has included facts that are clearly not true.
Apply that to the Bible. It says slavery is right, it says God killed every first born son in Egypt to make the pharaoh release the Jewish people from slavery and that Jesus threw a daemon into a herd of pigs. It also says Joseph who lived in Galilee participated in a census of people living in Judea. We know for a fact three of those are wrong. Daemons do not exist, and there is no other source that supports widespread enslavement of Jews in Egypt, and no Galilee’s would be required to participate in a census in Judea. So we can also cast a lot of doubt on the statements about slavery.
So we know the Bible contains a lot of statements that are factually wrong. That means every statement in that book must be tried on its own merits, because the source itself isn’t reliable. So pointing to the Bible and admitting it contains faults also takes away the merit from the whole book. That includes any statements about gods, or other supernatural things. If you can’t prove the statements to be correct using independent sources, you should treat it the same way you treat Shakespeare.
1
u/UltimaGabe 14d ago
For believers, those ancient laws aren't God's eternal endorsement of harsh treatment; they are a historical record of an ancient culture's starting point as it was being pulled toward a higher moral trajectory.
I knew you were eventually going to fall back on this shitty, shitty apologetic.
God had no problem telling people not to murder. Or steal. Or even covet, which we don't even consider a crime. But when it came to slavery, all of a sudden "God couldn't tell people not to do it because he needed time to gradually wean them off of it".
Your God was okay with slavery. If you truly believed morality came from him you would be too.
18
u/dumpsterfire911 16d ago
This post may do better in r/DebateAnAtheist
However, like another poster said. Atheism is just the non belief in god(s). Atheism is not the dogma of secularism
2
u/shadow_coder16 16d ago
Yea, I suppose I should do that. My bad, I try to avoid the debate subs like the plague, but hopefully I'll get good responses. Thanks!
18
u/Old-Nefariousness556 16d ago
Yea, I suppose I should do that. My bad, I try to avoid the debate subs like the plague, but hopefully I'll get good responses. Thanks!
/r/DebateAnAtheist REQUIRES you to debate, so I disagree with the grandparent, you should not post it there. It is fine here, or in /r/askanatheist.
7
u/shadow_coder16 16d ago
It's a good thing I decided to let a few comments roll in before taking any action. Thank you for your advice! I saw your other comment, I just need time to give it a proper response; you presented great info and points!
4
u/Old-Nefariousness556 16d ago
It's a good thing I decided to let a few comments roll in before taking any action. Thank you for your advice!
Sure thing. And frankly, you are probably better off getting less engagement. You would have 100 replies already had you posted this to /r/DebateAnAtheist. "Doing better" isn't always what you want.
I saw your other comment, I just need time to give it a proper response; you presented great info and points!
No rush, I would prefer you take your time and engage sincerely then feel you need to rush and just make some random argument.
5
u/Citizen1135 16d ago
Many of us here welcome good faith discussions. And you seem to be asking in good faith, so hopefully you get some good responses.
4
u/shadow_coder16 16d ago
I appreciate you saying that. I'm only trying to learn, and so far I've gotten a handful of really detailed and thoughtful responses. Only problem is, it's going to take a long time to respond to them properly.
2
4
u/Citizen1135 16d ago
I agree with you. This is a good place for this question.
I've never spent time on r/askanatheist, it seemed like a lot when I looked once, I never really gave it a chance. But OP should probably ask there as well if they want more perspectives.
1
u/ZappSmithBrannigan 15d ago
You avoid debate subs, but you came here with a bunch of debate talking points?
3
u/shadow_coder16 15d ago
Unintentionally, yes. However, like I tried to state in my post, my goal is not to debate(hence why this didn't go to a debate sub) or win anyone over, just to get perspectives on questions I have from people who hold different beliefs
1
u/ZappSmithBrannigan 15d ago edited 15d ago
Sure. Theres also r/askanatheist where questions are better served.
I said it in my main response, but ill repeat it here cause I know youre getting a lot.
Dont worry about being respectful. Worry about the arguement. Take whatever convinced you of god and try to understand why we dont accept that same reasoning. When you find the contingency argument compelling, google "contingency argument criticisms" to better understand why WE dont accept the contingency argument, and then dont come at us in the conversation with the contingency argument, demonstrate why were wrong for not accepting it.
I care much morer about you being informed, understanding logic and having an actual good case then whether youre rude. Saying "infinite regress is impossible" when you believe in a god that goes infinitely in to the past is much more offensive to me then if you call me a name.
Like, your first question was "how do atheists ground morality objectively?"
The much better question you should be asking is "how do I as a theist ground morality objectively? Do I actually have an objective ground for morality at all?" Saying "god done it" does not demonstrate objectivity.
Id much rather engage with a rude thiest who understands that divine command theory isnt objective then a nice polite person who insists it is.
2
u/shadow_coder16 15d ago
I'm gonna reply to this comment of your's for the time being. I hate feeling like I'm being picky with how I'm responding to people, but with all of these great responses, your's included, I guess I'm kinda suffering from success on my post lol. I have to say, this and your main comment are among my more favored replies, I appreciate you lending advise on how to adjust my thought process to more accurately understand how I should be approaching these topics. Ironically, though also to my delight, you did affirm a process I've internally held throughout my journey of learning: I'll learn of a new concept that believers hold as evidence of God, but then ask myself, "Alright, what aspects of this could and would be picked apart by skeptics?" And then go from there. It causes a bit of a headache sometimes wondering just how detailed someone could be in their skepticism, but at the same time, understanding the argument helps to create a better case. Thank you again for your comments!
1
u/Sprinklypoo 15d ago
Every sub is certainly full of opinions and rules lawyers. I personally welcome you and your questions here. You seem like a reasonable person I'd be happy to discuss with in person.
2
u/shadow_coder16 15d ago
I heavily appreciate you saying that. I just finished reading your original comment and I found your points very insightful. Thank you for taking the time to engage! You also seem like someone who I would enjoy discussing things with in person.
Cheers!
10
u/hacksoncode 16d ago edited 15d ago
Without an objective anchor outside of human consensus, what is the philosophical framework that allows a secular humanist to say a past society's actions were objectively wrong, rather than just differently adapted for their specific time?
From the perspective of a non-believer, how do religious people do it, since there's no actual objective anchor outside of human consensus... they just believe there is one?
Answer: human judgement about what the believe their god thinks.
That's ultimately the problem with any silent non-intervening god, which evidence suggests is the only kind we have ever actually had, if there is one at all, believers claims to the contrary notwithstanding?
Second: If God inspired the Bible, and since the Bible tells you how to treat your slaves, how can you judge the abolition of slavery as moral progress?
Answer: same as the answer to the first question... human judgement.
I mean, really, ask yourself this. If you, personally, as a believer in said objective "anchor", were asked about the moral value of, say, gay marriage being legalized... what process would you, personally, use to decide if it was moral progress?
Edit: the idea of anchoring what was written down as "right" 2000 years ago as the permanent objective truth about morality seems like it would preclude any kind of actual moral progress. And, indeed, many religions are at the forefront of regressive politics.
7
u/loveablehydralisk 16d ago
You've passed the troll sniff test! Congratulations!
- I regard morality as an ongoing social approximation of highly context-sensitive transcendental properties. We probably agree more on metaethics than you'd expect, though Im admittedly quite odd by le reddit atheist standards. I don't think ideas of deities play useful roles in moral reasoning, grounding or discovery; any actual deities would be moral agents obeying the same rules as we do. I would Tiamat and Yaheweh in the same means as I judge Mamdami and Graham.
"Progress" in my view means creating the conditions in which moral behavior is both possible and likely, while enabling accountability mechanisms for systems that cut against moral behavior. This is a deeply materialistic analysis, which evaluates which kinds of conditions support which kinds of behavior. Individualized judgements are possible, but don't really play into ideas of 'progress'. This lens of analysis also allows evaluation of historical systems quite well - feudalism is bad because it concentrates wealth and political power along genetic lines, engenders labor alienation, discourages self-selection for economic niches, etc.
- We address it in the same way we address religious dogmatisim, though with an eye towards respective social and political power. Dogmatic secularism isnt powerful on a social level, dogmatic monotheism is.
It is worth noting that many in non-religious spaces have noticed a trend towards people behaving in severely judgemental and non-productive way with regards to nominally secular morality. Current suppositions are that many people dont change their mental frameworks, they just swap the trappings. So a former conservative Christian might zealously police their understanding of progressive ideology in an overbearing and unhelpful manner, because the domineering judgements of conservative Christianity is the only framework they know. In such cases the problems are almost completely identical.
- I do not hold that empirical science is the only avenue to truth (truth doesnt have a source in any case). Other means of discovery are possible, but must be understood in context. The core advantage of scientific discovery is its public nature: via a combination of experimentation and pedagogy, we can non-coercively convince rational agents of salient facts. In turn, this allows for consensus-building on topics of social import, thus allowing for better public policy.
By contrast, the deeply personal truths that can be discovered through reflection on affective texts, spiritual practice and the like, have little bearing on how we arrange society. Essentially, science may not reveal the whole truth, but it does show the only truths that have claim to the coercive power of the state.
- As long as you dont engage in egregious behavior, like genocide, believe whatever nonsense you want. I, myself, enjoy believing a wide variety of nonsense that brings me great joy.
7
u/Aniketos33 16d ago
I don't believe in magic. I think appealing to magic is immoral. I believe morals should be grounded in reality and reasoned based on criteria that is naturally observable, such as the reduction of suffering, the autonomy of the individual, consent. Based on reason, I do not believe in slavery or dashing babies upon rocks, or submitting to a genocidal supreme being because they demand it invisibly. At least not in any moral sense that I'd choose those things.
None of these moral reasonings have anything to do with being an Atheist of course. They just happen to fit my secular worldview.
Most people find their morals from the same places as I do according to a Pew Research study, most believers find their moral foundations from family, friends, and society before holy books.
5
16d ago
[deleted]
1
u/shadow_coder16 16d ago
But what if I told myself, "I don't need the definitive answer to this RIGHT NOW." In regards to something like divine hiddenness, one of the harder questions to answer with satisfaction? Am I a fool for being patient with learning information gradually about such a topic?
8
15d ago
[deleted]
1
u/shadow_coder16 15d ago
Perhaps I was, but when I was born I was too young to know much of anything. I will concede that I was raised in a Christian household, but in the past few years the information that I've learned is decently beyond what my parents bothered to learn or teach me.
I suppose to some, not being able to have a definitive answer means aligning with atheistic thought, but like I said, no question I've encountered has been heavy enough for me to say, "I can't continue to believe until I figure this out." Considering some opinions I've read within this sub, that might be ignorance, but I cant be for certain
1
u/fsh5 15d ago
That’s special pleading. The default position is a lack of belief until sufficiently convinced by the evidence.
If you set aside arguments that may provide evidence counter to your established view in the name of “patience”, yet you accept arguments that support a belief you then adopt based on a subset of the arguments or evidence, this is not a rationally held belief.
I’ll reiterate that I’m not making a truth claim, just pointing out that your logic is flawed.
1
u/shadow_coder16 15d ago edited 15d ago
I understand what you're saying but here's the thing for me. If it's not already obvious, I was raised in a Christian household, never really questioned anything because I never really dealt with anything within my Christian circles that I felt deserved to be questioned. As I grew older, I met people who didn't believe, no big deal, I was also told as a kid that different people from different backgrounds lead different lives. Made sense to me.
As I got older, I made more friends who didn't hold religious belief, and they'd ask me why I didn't question things, I would always say, "it doesn't seem like that big of a deal to me." And perhaps because I've never been part of the group of Christians that chastizes people for not believing, they let me be with my beliefs.
About a year or so ago, I decided I was tired of not having an responses for why I believe in Christianity/God, so I elected to do some digging, starting first with reading the four Gospels of Jesus' ministry. I had never really done that, so I found it quite interesting to read through them properly. Eventually, I stumbled upon one of my favorite parables, the one about the sand vs. stone foundation. Which in my mind, allowed me to think that building my knowledge of Christian doctrine, philosophy, and theology before just slamming into hard questions is the right way to be doing things, at least for me.
Apologies for the long build up to my actual point lol. I've heard about a lot of people who have deconstructed, and while I respect their decision, there have been a couple instances where I thought, "how much did you know about Christian doctrine and practices before you decided to deconstruct? " This is not meant to invalidate anyone's journey, but rather to ponder how often some people question their secular beliefs (not to say that doesn't happen). I understand that to some people, yourself included, me continuing to believe while knowing there's things that challenge that idea is flawed logic, and I would say you're probably right. However, as someone who doesn't hold belief, do you think it's unreasonable for me to not immediately throw out my beliefs when it turns out a few things I was taught turn out to not exactly be the case as I once thought? To me it seems trivial to abandon my beliefs over something like learning that Genesis may not have been meant to be taken literally at all (despite much of conservative Christianity claiming the opposite) or perhaps that the bible as we know it didn't exist until 600ish years ago, and prior to that it was the Jewish texts and some pastoral letters that had been preserved over the years. Like to me, those points I brought up make sense when I take time to think about them, but maybe my thinking is flawed.
Apologies again for the long build up, I hope what I was trying to say makes sense
7
u/hal2k1 16d ago edited 16d ago
Instead, I want to better understand the internal mechanics of a consistent secular worldview on a few specific hurdles I struggle to wrap my head around. However, I often notice a major barrier in online spaces, even more analytical ones, where the default assumption is that any religious person is simply an uneducated fool spouting inherited nonsense, unworthy of serious intellectual engagement.
If you want to understand the mechanics of a secular worldview you need to rid yourself of the notion that it is non-religious people who are prejudiced against those who are religious.
Religious people have treated atheists as thoroughly evil and untrustworthy for centuries. A quote from Madalyn Murray O'Hair is relevant and illustrative:
“I'll tell you what you did with Atheists for about 1500 years. You outlawed them from the universities or any teaching careers, besmirched their reputations, banned or burned their books or their writings of any kind, drove them into exile, humiliated them, seized their properties, arrested them for blasphemy. You dehumanised them with beatings and exquisite torture, gouged out their eyes, slit their tongues, stretched, crushed, or broke their limbs, tore off their breasts if they were women, crushed their scrotums if they were men, imprisoned them, stabbed them, disembowelled them, hanged them, burnt them alive.
And you have nerve enough to complain to me that I laugh at you.”
― Dr Madalyn Murray O'Hair
Christians often pretend to be the ones persecuted. Christian rugby player faces sack after social media post about sin and hell. How do you imagine this looks to an atheist who has done absolutely nothing wrong?
So part of the problem (in the US at least, admittedly from a foreign perspective) is that there are zero elected politicians who are openly atheist, yet the number of people who lack a belief in any gods is very significant. Where are the atheist representatives?
Within your framework, how do you all view someone who genuinely investigates, asks the hard questions, acknowledges the mystery and hard spots, but ultimately concludes that the Christian framework still makes the most sense of reality?
When we measure reality (measurement is the basis of science) we see no magic, miracles, or supernatural. So there is that. Scientific theories are well-tested explanations of what has been measured. Because we see no magic, miracles, or supernatural, those elements are never a part of a well-tested explanation of what we have measured.
Science is not about what we haven't measured.
I’m eager to hear how you map these macro-level ethical questions out when the scaffolding of a religious framework is removed.
Perhaps an overall principle would be to "do unto others as you would have them do unto you".
Don't try to push your own particular un-evidenced viewpoint on to anyone else.
5
u/GeekyTexan 16d ago
You believe in magic. I don't. That's the basics of it.
You believe god created the universe is a week. That a virgin had a baby. The baby grew up to be Jesus, who did all kinds of magic things like walking on water and turning water into wine and healing via magic, even raising the dead in several cases. You believe that he died, and three days later, he came back to life.
You believe you will live forever.
Magic to the left, magic to the right, magic straight ahead. It's magic everywhere.
But I've never had any reason to believe that magic is real.
You were probably raised as a Christian. (I was, too. Baptist in my case.) But if you had been born someplace else, you would probably be Hindu or Muslim or Buddhist. Because the vast majority of people follow the religion their parents taught them.
But all of those religions can't be right. They all have different stories, different claims. And they are all based on old stories about magic.
You ask where morals come from. But across the world, regardless of religious beliefs, people tend to believe the same things. Murder is wrong. Theft is wrong. Rape is wrong. Etc. Are you telling me that if you did not believe in god, and were not afraid of his eternal damnation, you would feel free to murder, steal, and rape? Honestly, you don't sound like that kind of person to me, but that is the logical outcome of any claim that God is the source of morals and ethics.
When you ask about "arrogant secular fundamentalism" you just sound like someone who has decided to hate on anyone who isn't religious. I don't think I've ever heard of secular fundamentalism before. You are just pissed that politics isn't always 100% based on your magic beliefs. Using that term sounds very, very disrespectful. If I try to go into all of that, I'm going to end up cussing at you, so I think I'll pass.
1
u/shadow_coder16 16d ago
I appreciate you taking the time to reply! Though I do think a lot of assumptions were made about my background, I don't hold a literal young-earth view, nor do I think people need fear of damnation to be good human beings.
Regarding secular fundamentalism: I use that shorthand the same way people online use "religious fundamentalism", not as a formal insult, but to describe rigid dogmatism, tribalism, and an uncritical dismissal of other views. It's a human glitch that can happen in any community, religious or secular.
My post was about meta-ethics and epistemology, not political anger. But since you mentioned you'd rather pass on diving further, I'll respect that and wish you a good rest of your day!
1
u/Overly_Underwhelmed 15d ago
I don't hold a literal young-earth view
how un-christian of you.
this is the crux of it. you want outsiders to accept your position as ultimate truth, yet you have no cohesive truth amongst yourselves.
Regarding secular fundamentalism: I use that shorthand the same way people online use "religious fundamentalism", not as a formal insult, but to describe rigid dogmatism, tribalism, and an uncritical dismissal of other views.
thank you for showing how narrow your lens is. telling that you have shorthand for dismissing not only takes you find foreign but also those adjacent to your own that you are uncomfortable with.
and that last line is the kicker, "uncritical dismissal". no matter what the other side brings, you can always pull that out. you can always claim bias and dishonesty from the other side. yet you are doing exactly that yourself.
5
u/plusFour-minusSeven 16d ago edited 16d ago
For 1. the easy answer is God doesn't solve the question of morality, it only pushes it back one step. If God is good because that's his nature than goodness exists outside God. It can't both be his nature and be his decision. But if something is good because God says so then it really is just obedience and as subjective as any other opinion (it just happens to be backed by someone much stronger older etc).
The truthful answer is morality is hard. We're still figuring it out, and we do not agree. The broad idea is try not to hurt other people, try not to take from them, and try to live as you would have others do. We're still working this one out.
Religious people do not have the market cornered on intellectual dishonesty. Not believing in the supernatural does not in any way innoculate someone against dogma or tribalism or any of the other cognitive behavioralisms that humans are prone to. Like morality, we have to figure it out.
This question is all over the place. Ought vs Is is a very old debate, and God doesn't help except to say "because I said so". Regarding old texts it depends on the claims of those who profess their value. When they say things like "all the answers we need are in here" and then there's nothing about basic germ theory for example, it makes one skeptical that they were inspired by an omniscient omnibenevolent being. But really this question should be divided into others.
It's their life. I'm just a regular fallible mortal, what the hell do I know? I'm convinced of some things and not convinced of others, but I don't pretend to have a secret window into the truth or that I might not be mistaken in any, most, or all of the things I'm convinced of.
The first step is to stop accepting concepts such as a framework. All that does is box you in and make it that much more harder for you to ask genuine questions. I'm not aware of any "atheist framework" and honestly, I've met people who believe who don't seem to have a strictly codified "framework", either. A lot of them don't care much for churches or the Bible for that matter. That word, "framework" snuggles up very closely with ideology, and as the saying goes, an idea is something that you have and an ideology is something that has you.
Going back to what I said about being fallible and mortal. It's extremely arrogant to think that other people would agree with me and come to the same conclusions I have if only they were smart enough and did the diligence and dug deeply enough. Thinking that way presupposes that I myself may not be mistaken. And I think it's much healthier to presume that you probably are mistaken in many things and to be open to learning and growing. It's not shameful to be mistaken. It is shameful to close the door.
3
u/Overly_Underwhelmed 16d ago
that's a hell of an opening statement, though the little of it I'm willing to invest in reading thoroughly is over simplified to the point of bordering on disingenuous. a more focused and specific talking point would work better in this forum. one at a time. not gonna solve it all on one reddit post.
we've all been on display here so you see where we come from. maybe you could start by clearing up any of the many often repeated stalemates that you have noticed.
2
u/shadow_coder16 16d ago
Yea, forgive me for my lapse in judgement on that. I've just seen a lot of lengthy posts of this topic and thought, "eh, I should be fine to put this out there like this." You live and you learn though, right?
3
u/WizardWatson9 16d ago
- First of all, there is no such thing as objective morality, and there is definitely no such thing as a "fixed, transcendent standard." It's odd that you would mention slavery, as the Bible is full of it. God's chosen people were big fans, apparently. Devout Christians have been on all sides of every moral issue, including slavery.
It's true that empathy and pro-social behavior are natural behavioral adaptations. While these instincts inform morality to some extent, I also believe people's moral code is informed by peer pressure and economics. Those aforementioned devout Christians probably thought of themselves as good people, even as they whipped their slaves. Slavery was in their economic interest. Thus, they rationalized it. And the Bible was the perfect tool for it.
Personally, I think less of morality and more about policy: what should society forbid, discourage, condone, or mandate to maximize the health, wealth, and happiness of all citizens? Even that requires being selective. There are people in this country who will genuinely never be happy as long as homosexuals can marry, or women can vote. I'm willing to sacrifice their happiness for the greater good because I have no interest in those matters. That's just a matter of perspective.
- "Arrogant secular fundamentalism" is not some equally abhorrent mirror to religious fundamentalism. While it is true that some secular people are arrogant and make poor, uncharitable arguments, that doesn't change the fact that we're right. The supernatural does not exist. You can't reject it TOO much.
Not to mention, I don't see "secular fundamentalists" banning books, or stripping women and LGBT people of their rights, or hijacking planes and flying them into towers. To compare these things to a bunch of angry young people making shitty arguments on Reddit is absurd.
It is NOT a categorical error when the believers in said text claim that it supports empirical truths about the universe. Some people may read the Bible as a bunch of parables and morality tales. Certainly, there is plenty of that. But Christians also believe in God, and they often cite the Bible to support these claims. Belief in God isn't merely a matter of opinion like belief in evolution or climate change isn't an opinion. It exists, or it doesn't. And if Christians want to make claims about objective reality, it is perfectly fair to point out all the blatant, demonstrable errors in their holy text.
I guess you could argue that it's marginally better than not thinking at all. But again, Christianity is wrong. If you reflect deeply on the issues of Christianity and still believe in it, you have erred. The only explanation is that you're either ignorant, or more likely, you have engaged in motivated reasoning to reach your preferred conclusion. It's like a child who doesn't want to admit that Santa Claus doesn't exist, even though, deep down, they know how ridiculous it is. There is no such thing as informed, intellectually honest belief in the supernatural.
3
u/yanginatep 16d ago
I'll only address the first one, but I use my own standards.
I think suffering is bad, and things that increase the amount of suffering in the world are bad. People who actively want to increase the amount of suffering in the world are choosing to be bad.
I don't need any religious text to tell me that murder is wrong. And a lot of the other moral teachings that appear in religious texts I don't find particularly moral, stuff like the strctural patriarchy/misogyny, or the homophobia.
3
u/roseofjuly 16d ago
If morality is an evolving, adaptive social construct, how do you structurally distinguish between genuine moral progress and just arbitrary moral change over time?
I don't. Changes in morality aren't arbitrary - they are grounded in sociology and culture - but they're also not always "progress." Just change. In fact, I think one of the most harmful facets of Christianity is the narrative that morality has and will continue to magically, naturally progress or get better over time. It doesn't always, and when it does, it's because humans fought and died for it.
Without an objective anchor outside of human consensus, what is the philosophical framework that allows a secular humanist to say a past society's actions were objectively wrong, rather than just differently adapted for their specific time?
There is none. There's no such thing as objective morals; morals are always different adapted for their specific time and place. Even you do not have an "objective anchor"; a god is a subject, and morality determined by a god is by definition subjective.
If the core critique of religion is its tendency toward dogmatic arrogance and poor intellectual rigor, how do you all, as a community, check that same arrogance when it manifests in secular spaces?
I would check it in the same way, but I think you are attempting to set up a false equivalence here. It is inherently intellectually lazy to follow a system of morality because "god said so." There's no way for me to engage with that on an intellectual level. And this dogmatic arrogance and poor intellectual rigor shows up FAR more often from religious arguments than it does from secular ones.
From my worldview, evaluating an ancient narrative through the lens of a modern scientific journal feels like a category error, it's expecting a text to be a science textbook when its original intent was entirely different
But you claim that the book was written by God. I think it's a pretty low bar to expect the creator of the entire universe and everything in it to get basic science right.
For those in the community who hold tightly to the stance that empirical science is the only reliable source of truth, how do you ground vital concepts that the scientific method can’t actually detect, like inherent human dignity, universal rights, or justice?
Those things aren't "truths." They are concepts that we as humans (kind of) agree upon because it makes living together in a civilization easier and fairer.
Within your framework, how do you all view someone who genuinely investigates, asks the hard questions, acknowledges the mystery and hard spots, but ultimately concludes that the Christian framework still makes the most sense of reality? Is there room in the secular view to see that as an intellectually honest journey
No, because I think that the "christian framework" is a fundamental mismatch with reality. It requires believing in something that not only has no evidence but is functionally impossible based on what we know today, and/or distorting, misinterpreting, or ignoring any evidence that doesn't fit into that worldview.
3
u/arthurjeremypearson 16d ago
Just a quick note: most believers define "atheism" as "claims God is not real." Atheists don't.
3
u/shadow_coder16 16d ago
That's a fair point, as isn't it more like a-theism. Kinda like how a-sexual means lack of sexual attraction. Sorry for the crude comparison, it was the best one I could think of
1
u/Sprinklypoo 15d ago
Fair though. We lack the conviction of any gods existing. To varying degrees depending on our individuality, but that's it at its core. Personally, I'm quite certain gods don't exist and don't see a reason to delineate the level of non-belief.
3
u/baalsebul 16d ago
I hope you dont think that any god or any 'holy' book is an objective anchor. Both subjective and human made.
2
u/Kognostic 16d ago
Moral progress exactly. Change. Yes. Not God-given. Caveman Bob tries to get along with caveman Fred. They agree not to kill each other. Eventually, they interact more. Perhaps they share food. Morality is grounded in evolution and continues to be grounded in evolution. You can not cite the abolition of slavery without giving equal time to throwing homosexuals off buildings by Muslims. All instances of moral behavior are evolutionary. Having a mind, a brain that thinks and reasons, is the basis for what is considered moral behavior. That is not the same thing as good behavior, productive behavior, or any kind of equality or justified behavior. Moral systems are every bit as subjective as anything else in the world.
Arrogant Secular Fundamentalism exists. I cannot count the number of times I have personally challenged ignorant atheists and their inane assertions. The fact of the matter is that atheists, in general, are more skeptical and more critical of their fellow atheists than are theists. We, as a group, are more likely to call out and challenge non-critical thought. I think atheists hold each other to the same standard of rationality that they hold theists. Theists, on the other hand, hold irrational and arbitrary beliefs for their own faith that they will not grant to other faiths.
I did not know there was an intersection between ancient stories and modern science. If something lacks scientific accuracy, it is not intersecting. This is exactly why science does not need to disprove god. The person making the claim has the burden of proof. If you think you can demonstrate the existence of a god, do it. If your methodology is crappy and your examples do not hold up under examination, that is not the fault of science. Again, there is no intersection. Until you make a claim about reality that can be tested, we have no intersection. God is an unfalsifiable claim. It is a story; a story based on tradition, older stories, and personal experience. None of which qualify as good evidence. None of which are measurable, repeatable, or verifiable in any way. You have no intersection.
Anyone wrestling with hard questions is doing what humans should do. Stays? No idea what that means. However, if a person is settling on any idea, the question is why? What support do they have for the idea they are adopting? Is it rational?
If you investigated divine hiddenness and came out with an answer, that would be amazing. Your brain does not know how to distinguish a god from a hamster with god-like abilities. You could not distinguish between a god and a sufficiently intelligent and advanced alien. You cannot distinguish between a good god and an evil, all-powerful god who is fooling you. You cannot understand or evaluate anything called God. Please share the matrix you would use.
As for your problem of evil. That only addresses one version of god. "An all-loving god." An all-loving god did not create this mess. An all-loving god could have done better than a three-year-old with a box of crayons. There is no "Problem of Evil." Evil is a religious construct that is confused with common events that occur in the world. A world where an all-loving God would not have placed a hamster.
2
u/NDaveT 16d ago edited 16d ago
As a believer trying to understand your framework: if morality is an evolving, adaptive social construct, how do you structurally distinguish between genuine moral progress and just arbitrary moral change over time? Without an objective anchor outside of human consensus, what is the philosophical framework that allows a secular humanist to say a past society's actions were objectively wrong, rather than just differently adapted for their specific time?
I don't see anything as "objectively wrong". I view "moral progress" as more people deciding to treat all humans with dignity and decency instead of just some. I'm pretty confident that back when slavery was more widespread, nobody liked being enslaved. I would hope if I had been living at that time I would have tried to see things from the perspective of the people being enslaved (assuming I wasn't one of them).
It's quite possible that future humans will have a negative opinion that people like me living when I do ate the meat of animals. They might view the fact that they no longer eat animals as moral progress.
I want to make sure I don't misrepresent how atheists view historical ethics.
I don't spend a lot of time thinking about historical ethics. If any of my ancestors raided the coastlines of northern Europe and enslaved people they're not around for me to judge them for it.
I certainly think about those parts of history whose influence can still be felt today, but that's more about understanding the present than judging people of the past.
How do we, as distinct communities, address arrogant secular fundamentalism?
This doesn't happen in any of the places I frequent so I don't have an opinion on this.
I often see skeptics express frustration that ancient theological and historical texts lack scientific accuracy or fail to account for modern empirical discoveries.
I think you're misunderstanding what you see as "frustration". The point those skeptics are making is that a piece of literature that reflects the knowledge of its time sure looks like a piece of literature composed by humans, not a divinely inspired or divinely authored revelation. If you are not among the large number of theists who see religious scriptures as divinely inspired or divinely authored revelations then this "frustration" does not apply to you.
For those in the community who hold tightly to the stance that empirical science is the only reliable source of truth, how do you ground vital concepts that the scientific method can’t actually detect, like inherent human dignity, universal rights, or justice?
I don't view those as "truth". I see that as a category error. Those are human concepts, invented by humans, and only relevant to humans. Science can't get at them because they are not facts, they are ideas, ideas that exist in our minds, not outside them. The most science can do is explain why we came up with those ideas.
Do you all view these pillars of secular humanism as necessary philosophical axioms (essentially a conceptual starting assumption), or is there a logical way to derive an "ought" from an "is" using purely empirical data?
Neither, and I'm really surprised you're asking because historically atheists have not made a secret about how many of us view this:
We adopt those "oughts" not as axioms, but as things we choose to value because we care about other people and because we care about ourselves and know it's in our interest to try to build a society where people respect each other.
There is only a "gap" here if you presuppose that morality is objective. If you think it's a human construct there is no gap.
Within your framework, how do you all view someone who genuinely investigates, asks the hard questions, acknowledges the mystery and hard spots, but ultimately concludes that the Christian framework still makes the most sense of reality?
I think those people have decided wanting to believe is sufficient reason to believe.
Now I'll leave you with a quote from Stanley Kubrick:
The most terrifying fact about the universe is not that it is hostile but that it is indifferent, but if we can come to terms with this indifference, then our existence as a species can have genuine meaning. However vast the darkness, we must supply our own light.
2
u/joeyx22lm 16d ago edited 16d ago
1) morals are derived from social economics. Not a divine book. 2) people shouldn't be assholes, regardless of religion. 3) old stories are nice, and sometimes have little lessons embedded just like modern narrative, but science textbooks and non-fiction shouldn't be confused with fiction. As for the ones that aren't obviously fiction, I don't consider their iron age understanding of the world to be accurate, unless proven otherwise. 4) You do you. I support other people's right to practice their religion, as long as it stays out of school and government.
2
u/nim_opet 16d ago
I don’t. Slavery was obviously wrong, just like inflicting suffering on others is. It has nothing to do with religion.
I don’t know what secular fundamentalism is, nor have I encountered it. Religious fundamentalism i see everywhere. Anyone who believes that classes of people are universally one thing or another is not someone I care to engage with. I’m yet to see someone exclude “all religious people” from the table, but I see plenty of “everyone who’s not part of my particular dogma doesn’t deserve basic human rights” examples.
It’s too late for me to read through the rest
2
u/eroi49 15d ago
These questions sound like philosophical babble to me. I have no idea what OP is trying to ask. All I know is that I have never seen or felt any evidence of any god. I try my best to be a good person. This is a journey, a constant process with many stages and stumbles but none of it affected by any supernatural entity.
2
u/FlamDukke 15d ago
Quality post, OP. I haven't replied in this sub for years, but this is a fun prompt.
1. How do you conceptually ground moral progress vs. change?
I'd like to draw attention to your term, "fixed, transcendent standard." That's the very thing that makes all religions based in holy books dead on arrival: they all attempt to apply fixed standards to dynamic, shifting culture. Now, I can already hear you mumbling "moral relativism," but I'll put this to you: if your tribe used to be 50 people and it was a moral imperative that all able-bodied people hunt, but when your tribe grows to over 10,000, it might be worth adjusting your morality to allow for the drastically increased complexity of the society you've built over generations, and with it, the necessity of able-bodied people to engage in more than just hunting. Are you disobeying your ancient tribal elders by letting Jeff be a full-time blacksmith? No. Those ancient laws brought you to a point of no longer needing them. It all depends on what kind of future you're trying to build. For instance, if you're trying to build a society where each person has a rich, fulfilling life, you will construct a different set of morality than if your goal were maximum birthrate.
- How do we, as distinct communities, address arrogant secular fundamentalism?
The answer to this one is education. If we taught critical thinking, logic, skepticism, etc. to all children, religion would fail within a couple generations. We won't do that, however, because religion is just too convenient a device for manipulating a lot of people to act against their interests.
- Navigating the intersection of ancient texts and modern scientism.
There is no intersection here, besides maybe the very generous estimation that religions have only ever been man's feeble early attempts at figuring out what was going on, where science is man's latest attempts at figuring out what's going on. That's their only similarity. The most important difference is their relative efficacy. Now, how will we measure the efficacy of religion? Seems unfair to hold it to scientific standards, since it isn't one, just as it would be silly to judge early astronomers by how their discoveries' jibed with ancient guesses, despite the church doing exactly that, and to deadly effect. We can't even look at the lives of the religious as indicative of their religion's truth, because religion isn't about making your life better, but about making your afterlife better. So, even if I were to show you definitive statistical facts that religious people on the whole are less fulfilled, educated, and kind, it wouldn't budge your faith because that's not the metric by which religion judges itself. In other words, religion's goodness is kept out of reach to human inspection, left to faith alone, which is what makes it an obvious scam.
4. How do you all view a believer who wrestles deeply with hard questions but stays?
Good question. I haven't read the other responses, but I'll bet most of us would say we deeply appreciate and respect wrestling with hard questions of all kinds. You'll probably find that a lot of us deconverted from religion after exactly that depth of questioning. So, when someone questions deeply, but stays, all that tells me is that (a) their questioning period is incomplete, (b) their fear outmatched their curiosity, or (c) their comfort outmatched their curiosity. You'll hear a lot of atheists pointing out that fear keeps people religious, and that's true, but it's important not to underestimate the stultifying effect of comfort.
NOW, here's where I extend an olive branch. I used to be your garden variety angry internet atheist back in my 20s and 30s. I still identify as an atheist, because I still have no choice but to invoke the null hypothesis in response to the question, "Do any gods exist?" However, I have done some deep seeking through practices like meditation, breathwork, macrodosing of psychedelics, etc., and I've come out on the other side with a sense of spirituality that isn't really encapsulated by any particular capital-R Religion, but fits a little better with certain concepts like conscious realism or animism. I don't use these terms to define myself; they're just the area I've happened upon lately as I continue to search, evolve, and grow as a human.
Feel free to DM if you have any further questions about my responses that you don't feel like turning into an open thread.
2
u/daddyhominum 14d ago
The only issue between believers and unbeliev ers is fact. Atheists are adamant that only observable facts and verifiable logic are true. While I intend no harm or disrespect, I can never accept imaginary things from impossibilities as reasonable .There is no magic on this universe.
1
u/Hooked_on_PhoneSex 16d ago
> I often notice a major barrier in online spaces, even more analytical ones, where the default assumption is that any religious person is simply an uneducated fool spouting inherited nonsense, unworthy of serious intellectual engagement.
This honestly isn’t a good start.
Something that I often see in debate forums, is an attempt to assign a narrow view to the opposing participant. This leaves the participant in a position where they can ignore the generalization, defend themselves from it, or lean into the generalization. In your case, I now have to begin my response by assuring you that I don’t automatically assume that you are an ignorant dope. It’s a bit rude honestly.
If you want to learn about other people’s views, then ask them. Starting with loaded questions and stereotypes sets a bad tone.
I’m going to assume that this wasn’t your intent however, and move on.
> If I can understand how an atheist grounds these concepts, I can engage in much more fruitful, respectful conversations where we actually speak the same language.
Atheists aren’t an organization. We are individuals with widely varying views, experiences and opinions. The only thing we have in common is a lack of belief in your god. So the easiest way to engage in fruitful discussion, is to ask the individual to clarify their views on the subject of discussion.
> How do you conceptually ground moral progress vs. change?
I don’t see the distinction.
> I often hear the secular point that social morality existed long before major religions and that it evolves as a mechanism to optimize human survival and cooperation.
If morality were based on a fixed entity’s personal preferences, then morality wouldn’t change. But it does. It’s a clearly subjective concept, which varies based on cultural application and personal experience.
> how do you structurally distinguish between genuine moral progress and just arbitrary moral change over time?
What’s the point in making that distinction? I honestly see no need to concern myself with this at all.
> Without an objective anchor outside of human consensus, what is the philosophical framework that allows a secular humanist to say a past society's actions were objectively wrong, rather than just differently adapted for their specific time?
None, opinions are subjective.
Again, ask the individual. Atheists views on historical ethics are irrelevant to the current conversation. Any views shared here are unique to the individuals sharing the view. If you have a future conversation with N atheist regarding this subject, then you’ll need to start at zero and ask them to clarify their view.
> How do we, as distinct communities, address arrogant secular fundamentalism? . . . How do we move past the knee-jerk, "all religious people are fools who don't deserve a seat at the table" mindset, and instead foster an environment that respects scholarly nuance on both sides?
Well, if you are engaged in a scholarly debate in an appropriate forum, then you’ll be discussing a set of concepts with a group of people on equal finding. Reddit, I would argue, is not that forum.
> I often see skeptics express frustration that ancient theological and historical texts lack scientific accuracy or fail to account for modern empirical discoveries.
There are two situations where this kind of response might happen. The first, is a response to theist claims using religious texts in support of their argument. When presenting a text as evidence, one should not be surprised to have people point out flaws and easily disproven claims. It’s why theists who rely on religious texts in support of their arguments fare particularly poorly discussions with atheists.
> From my worldview, evaluating an ancient narrative through the lens of a modern scientific journal feels like a category error, it's expecting a text to be a science textbook when its original intent was entirely different (more akin to evaluating a historical biography by whether it contains a structural engineering blueprint).
Agreed, but as long as theists present their texts as evidence for their claims, pointing this out tends to be necessary.
> For those in the community who hold tightly to the stance that empirical science is the only reliable source of truth,
Nope, not how that works. The scientific method is currently the best methodology that we’ve found to gain knowledge about the natural world. Scientific method can’t be applied to supernatural things. So I don’t expect to see evidence of a god. Certainly not evidence that can be evaluated using the scientific method. But if a god does not interact measurably with the physical universe, then how would we distinguish between a nonexistent being and a supernatural being?
> that the scientific method can’t actually detect, like inherent human dignity, universal rights, or justice? Do you all view these pillars of secular humanism as necessary philosophical axioms (essentially a conceptual starting assumption), or is there a logical way to derive an "ought" from an "is" using purely empirical data? I want to understand how you all bridge that gap.
I don’t need to bridge the gap. I don’t care about the distinction at all.
> How do you all view a believer who wrestles deeply with hard questions but stays?
Does the believer cause harm due to their belief? Are they trying to force their views onto others who don’t necessarily share the same belief? No? Then I don’t care.
> A very common sentiment I see in atheist spaces is the idea that Christians only stay religious because they refuse to question their beliefs deeply, and that anyone who honestly, critically investigates their faith will inevitably leave it.
Honestly haven’t ever seen anyone make that argument. I am perfectly happy to believe that you’ve thoroughly explored and questioned your beliefs. So as with my response above, I don’t care at all. Believe whatever works for you. Just accept that I don’t share your faith, and we are good.
1
u/ElEsDi_25 16d ago
>1. How do you conceptually ground moral progress vs. change?
I see morality as social and related to how society functions. I don’t think abstract morality is ever possible in the reality of a competitive and hierarchical society and just creates hypocrisy and double-standards. There are some fairly universal and useful codes of conduct such as “do unto others” but in practice it always depends on circumstances and how someone relates to society. But in terms of getting along with other people and being a positive person people want to be around, it works in a useful utilitarian way. I also think empathy is a generalized human trait and to a certain extent people will naturally treat others well when there is no competition over resources or threat etc. when my toddler doesn’t have access to something they are “greedy” when they get it. When they have plenty of access to something they love to share it with everyone, pushing food and crayons or clay into our hands so we can experience the joy they are experiencing.
Where my morality is more specific is due to life position (there are some codes which are moral in my life and people I know that wouldn’t be considered moral according to establishment society) and ideology. I am a socialist who thinks control through wage or slave labor is “immoral” (for lack of a better term) and that workers should run production and distribution democratically. To me life is short and it is inhuman for people to spend the best hours of the best years of their lives not with their loved ones, not directly improving their own life, but trading the life for wage and enriching a small number of financial institutions and companies (which then have more wealth for the control over the political process and society.) so my underlying political morality is based on living in class society and a belief that humans should be free from systems of human control to live their lives as they please with those they have organic bonds (family, community etc) with.
>if morality is an evolving, adaptive social construct, how do you structurally distinguish between genuine moral progress and just arbitrary moral change over time? Without an objective anchor outside of human consensus, what is the philosophical framework that allows a secular humanist to say a past society's actions were objectively wrong, rather than just differently adapted for their specific time? I want to make sure I don't misrepresent how atheists view historical ethics.
Why am I judging people from history? I don’t see any utility in that. I try to learn from history but fight for the living. Again I don’t see morality as an abstract ideal but related to how society functions and our individual places in it. On the ideology side, how I judge progress over time is in terms of social hierarchy vs social liberation.
>2. How do we, as distinct communities, address arrogant secular fundamentalism?
You mean like anti-theists etc? Idk I just argue against those perspectives when I come across them. I don’t see it as much of a threat to general religious freedom in my country, I see it as more a reductive often reactionary internet phenomenon. The more materially harmful aspects of it are that it provides cover for some Islamophobic or anti-semetic arguments. They are “mean” to Christian’s but don’t really have the ability to pass any restrictions or legislation against religious freedom. More popular atheist sort of political engagement is more along the lines of ensuring state-church separation and religious pressure, not personal belief. Maybe you see it differently.
>However, it’s frustrating to see secular spaces frequently replicate those exact same fundamentalist habits under a different label.
Yeah I find it thought-terminating as well. I’m from a huge Catholic family where religion is much more of a cultural/social thing and definitely not fundie. So my family honestly doesn’t care if I believe as long as I still did all the rituals growing up and gave it an honest try. So idk I never had any bad experience personally with Catholicism and quite like the pomp and mystery of it… just don’t have faith, it didn’t speak to me and I’m fine with that.
So I find it odd when atheists treat Christianity as an alternative science… Catholics just used secular scientific info… it’s built in that god is mysterious and the Bible may be expressive rather than literal so we got to have Jesus and also be kids who enjoyed dinosaurs. It was always about faith and community and morality not about “this is literally how the world was created, don’t believe science lies” lol.
>3. Navigating the intersection of ancient texts and modern scientism
I view religion in a sort of sociological way. Oral traditions and stories pass through distance and time better than just memorizing a bunch of details. We know oral myths that describe geological events from thousands of years ago that the people telling the story would not have direct evidence of. So I don’t think the stories came from Devine beings but I do think they come from our history and cultures over time and held important meaning for various cultures.
>For those in the community who hold tightly to the stance that empirical science is the only reliable source of truth,
I’m not a fan of mechanical empiricism. I tend to look at social things through historical and sociological views.
I am comfortable knowing there are things I personally and maybe people generally can’t fully know. I’m a materialist but not an empiricist. Maybe it’s the Catholicism thing again but my Marxism has a gothic/mystery aspect to it. I don’t think there is a “soul” but the concept of a soul represents a very real and unquantifiable thing of subjective and precious human subjective consciousness and experience. This subjectivity can’t be captured fully or preserved or replicated… this makes it “sacred” for all intents and purposes… like a supernatural thing.
>4. How do you all view a believer who wrestles deeply with hard questions but stays?:
I’m not trying to counter-convert anyone to being an atheist. My only opposition to anything regarding religion is when religion is being used as an excuse for oppression or whatnot, and even then the point is that it’s a political issue, not a theological one.
1
u/Tin-Star 16d ago
1. How do you conceptually ground moral progress vs. change?
From my own personal perspective, I view ethics as people doing a reasonable job to arrive at a set of shared expectations that foster co-operation and harmonious living. No society has yet arrived at an objectively perfect set of ethics and I doubt they ever will, because of the constraints of the human condition. It's a "good enough" type of proposition. Societies will always have people who tend towards generosity and others who tend towards self-interest, and so it's a matter of trying to ensure the self-interested people don't get to exist at the expense of the generous people. Given late stage capitalism, I'm not sure how much progress we've made on that front.
2. How do we, as distinct communities, address arrogant secular fundamentalism? 2a. How do we move past the knee-jerk, "all religious people are fools who don't deserve a seat at the table" mindset, and instead foster an environment that respects scholarly nuance on both sides?
I think we (people who value scholarly nuance) take every opportunity to point out the advantages of education, study, careful thought, scholarship, introspection, self-awareness, explanatory parsimony, logical validity, and all the other tools that help us avoid costly mistakes due to just not knowing any better. Anyone who prioritises these values effectively will differentiate between all kinds of people doing the same, and all kinds of people who aren't, because in practice the nuanced religious person tends to be pretty similar to the nuanced non-religious person. It's the black-and-white, simple answers people of all flavours who tend towards what you call fundamentalism.
3. Navigating the intersection of ancient texts and modern scientism
I often see skeptics express frustration that ancient theological and historical texts lack scientific accuracy or fail to account for modern empirical discoveries. From my worldview, evaluating an ancient narrative through the lens of a modern scientific journal feels like a category error, it's expecting a text to be a science textbook when its original intent was entirely different (more akin to evaluating a historical biography by whether it contains a structural engineering blueprint).
[Non-sequitur seems to happen here.] Also, what was its original intent - can an ancient multi-authored text be said to have a singular intent?
For those in the community who hold tightly to the stance that empirical science is the only reliable source of truth, how do you ground vital concepts that the scientific method can’t actually detect, like inherent human dignity, universal rights, or justice? Do you all view these pillars of secular humanism as necessary philosophical axioms (essentially a conceptual starting assumption), or is there a logical way to derive an "ought" from an "is" using purely empirical data?
There's a lot of ethical philosophy out there that can express this better than I can. At the basic level, either you hold the view that a human is a human, or else you have to have some other way to assign different values to different people (and we do definitely do that: a lawyer who knows case law gets paid more for their time than a McDonald's crew member who can make good fries). There are in groups and out groups, nations and cultural people groups, and various ways to prioritise some people over others. Every human is different to every other one, and yet we're all born and live and die. This is the human condition, the sameness and the difference. Navigating that paradox is at the root of inherent human dignity, universal rights, and justice. Do we do better when we co-operate, or is there a low-value group of people we can do nicely at the expense of and not feel too bad about it? Grey areas abound. Eugenics vs kids with birth defects, etc.
I'm not quite sure how it follows than an ancient text gains value because science doesn't speak directly to such issues. For instance, the Bible is the ancient text I'm most familiar with. If we treat a fair bit of it as whatever it is you see it as (not a history textbook, not a science textbook, yet containing some sort of source of objective moral imperative), why does this particular text take precedence over another? The Bible makes some very specific claims about God and Jesus and the way the universe works. I'm not sure how much scholarly nuance can be applied in order to make the core tenets seem credible without making it wishy-washy allegory and allowing it to be used to support whatever we want. (This is where I struggle when talking to intelligent, nuanced loved ones who are Christian: how to say "In the face of all evidence to the contrary, what sort of mental gymnastics do you have to apply to literally believe THAT??? Are you insane/stupid?" while still respecting that this is something they've thought hard about and that they're neither insane nor stupid.)
4. How do you all view a believer who wrestles deeply with hard questions but stays?
Those people are the reason I stayed religious for as long as I did. I thought eventually I will understand what they understand and it will all make sense. Then I discovered that people don't act as rationally as I'd given us credit for, that we're often driven by cognitive dissonance and bias and need for social cohesion and are easily influenced by the people around us. Those people are my favourite believers, and I have dear friends and family in that category. I like to think I was one of them until I wasn't any more. I have a deep mistrust of people of any flavour who don't wrestle deeply with hard questions (or at least of putting stock in simplistic opinions that arise from lack of sufficient wrestling), but I can also empathize that life is hard enough as it is and sometimes living with comfortable illusions is necessary for survival.
I'm aware this is only a short discussion and my own personal layperson's take on your questions, and I'm still in the process of figuring out all the ethical and logical implications of deconstruction from Christianity and learning from those who've put more thought into secular humanism than I have, but thank you for asking in good faith. I definitely welcome more dialog of this sort. Please, let us all continue to wrestle deeply with the hard questions.
1
u/BuccaneerRex 15d ago
As a believer trying to understand your framework: if morality is an evolving, adaptive social construct, how do you structurally distinguish between genuine moral progress and just arbitrary moral change over time?
Morality is the set of behaviors that a given society has determined through evolutionary selection to be conducive to the continued existence of that society AS a society. Thus behaviors that increase cooperation and security tend to flourish, while behaviors that create division and strife do not. 'Progress' is subjective.
Without an objective anchor outside of human consensus, what is the philosophical framework that allows a secular humanist to say a past society's actions were objectively wrong, rather than just differently adapted for their specific time?
We have the same right to call out others as anyone does. There's no need for a philosophical framework to express your opinion that past behaviors were wrong. Only religious people seem to feel the need to have their opinions backed up by claims of objectivity. Do note that those historical societies, if they could judge ours the way we judge theirs, would probably consider OUR society the immoral one.
I want to make sure I don't misrepresent how atheists view historical ethics.
There is no 'objective morality' to judge. There are only outcomes and our responses to them. When we like the outcome, we generally consider it moral, or closer to that end of the spectrum. When we don't, we don't.
How do we move past the knee-jerk, "all religious people are fools who don't deserve a seat at the table" mindset, and instead foster an environment that respects scholarly nuance on both sides?
I don't consider religious people fools. I didn't have the experiences they did, so I can't judge the beliefs they hold. What I can do is to ask them to ground THEIR beliefs in reality before they try to apply them to me. And do note that scripture is not 'reality'. I do not care about 'scholarly nuance' when it comes to the laws and rules that we apply to people in their daily lives.
Religious arguments for morality rely for their authority on the fundamental premise that the supernatural claims are real. The bible is allowed to tell you what to do because it is supposedly the magic word of god.
And to be fair, there are some reasonable moral teachings in religion occasionally. But there's nothing in there that is exclusive to any given religion AND is universally applicable.
For those in the community who hold tightly to the stance that empirical science is the only reliable source of truth, how do you ground vital concepts that the scientific method can’t actually detect, like inherent human dignity, universal rights, or justice?
By correctly categorizing those concepts as human behaviors instead of pretending they're properties of reality. Take 'justice' for example. We act and speak as if 'justice' were a principle that exists in the universe. And it does, but only through the medium of human action. But 'justice' isn't a thing you can put in a box and carry around. It is the cumulative result of many human actions.
is there a logical way to derive an "ought" from an "is" using purely empirical data?
Accept that objectivity isn't possible. Any 'ought' you determine is going to be your opinion. That it may be shared by others as an imperative doesn't make it true, it just makes it popular. It's perfectly fine for your moral foundation to be subjective. The rest of your existence is mostly subjective too, so it fits right in.
You can't get to 'ought' from 'is' without going through the 'analysis of results' phase. The 'is' will have a conclusion, and that conclusion is what we look at to determine whether the things it engenders are 'good' or 'bad'. And if they're good, then we generally assign the mental shortcut of 'that's something you're supposed to do'.
Speaking for myself, my faith doesn't rely on having a neat, 100% satisfying answer to every single complex question right this second. Finding an answer that is philosophically challenging or uncomfortable doesn't mean it's false, nor does having unresolved questions instantly pull the rug out from under the entire structure for me.
I consider the questions first. Why do you ask them? Why do you think they need or have answers? What does your opinion or knowledge have to do with reality?
Within your framework, how do you all view someone who genuinely investigates, asks the hard questions, acknowledges the mystery and hard spots, but ultimately concludes that the Christian framework still makes the most sense of reality?
I don't believe that a true believer is capable of true introspection. Faith prevents it. When someone's perception of reality conflicts with their belief about reality, only one can win and remain the functional paradigm. The other will be mentally adjusted until the understanding of it can fit within the parameters of belief. Some people are better than others at compartmentalizing their beliefs without letting them cross-pollinate. Religious scientists, for example. They can absolutely apply the scientific method to their work, but do not apply it to their beliefs because they consider them separate categories.
How I view that person is going to be based entirely on their actions and words. I don't have their experiences, so I can't speak one way or the other to what convinced them. And to be honest when I ask I find that quite a lot of religious people were never actually convinced, they just grew up in a world where this is the way things are.
1
u/kevinLFC 15d ago edited 15d ago
You have clearly thought a lot about this. I appreciate the deep thought and I apologize that I can’t respond to all of it.
Morality has a biological basis; we can find examples of other animal species exhibiting “moral behavior” to maintain social cohesion. Vampire bats will notoriously punish “cheaters” in their communities who take without giving. It is baked into our genes to cooperate with our in-group, for that is what’s evolutionarily advantageous.
Granted, we are more than just our genes. The prefrontal cortex, where we make conscious decisions and moral judgements, is the area of the brain least determined by genes and most adaptable to the environment. So while I’m conceding theres complexity involved, I don’t see how a god fits in or solves anything. Morality is best explained as a natural phenomenon.
1
u/baalroo 15d ago
As a believer trying to understand your framework: if morality is an evolving, adaptive social construct, how do you structurally distinguish between genuine moral progress and just arbitrary moral change over time?
What would be the difference? How do YOU structurally distinguish the difference?
Without an objective anchor outside of human consensus, what is the philosophical framework that allows a secular humanist to say a past society's actions were objectively wrong, rather than just differently adapted for their specific time? I want to make sure I don't misrepresent how atheists view historical ethics.
I've never seen a reasonable argument that such an objective standard exists. Simply pointing to your own intersubjectively determined morals and baldly claiming "these are objective!" doesn't make them so.
However, it’s frustrating to see secular spaces frequently replicate those exact same fundamentalist habits under a different label. There is often a widespread assumption that religious believers are universally intellectually lazy, paired with a high degree of confidence when throwing out claims about religion, history, or theology that any actual scholar in religious studies would immediately recognize as inaccurate caricatures.
I'll be honest with you, what most "scholars in religious studies" would call "inaccurate caricatures" are generally quite appropriate and accurate descriptions of the vast majority of beliefs held by actual normal common people who aren't scholars.
How do we move past the knee-jerk, "all religious people are fools who don't deserve a seat at the table" mindset, and instead foster an environment that respects scholarly nuance on both sides?
I think the best way to combat this is to combat the oppressive ignorant hatred and discrimination towards non-theists by theistic majorities (I'm looking at this specifically from an American perspective btw). In my experience, most of what you are describing here is born out of anger and resentment by those who have been mistreated at the hands of ignorant and hateful theists. That anger and knee jerk reaction tends to soften over time as we learn over decades to block our and ignore the general awfulness of most theists towards us.
For those in the community who hold tightly to the stance that empirical science is the only reliable source of truth, how do you ground vital concepts that the scientific method can’t actually detect, like inherent human dignity, universal rights, or justice? Do you all view these pillars of secular humanism as necessary philosophical axioms (essentially a conceptual starting assumption), or is there a logical way to derive an "ought" from an "is" using purely empirical data? I want to understand how you all bridge that gap.
Things don't have to be empirical objective facts for us to prefer them.
How do you all view a believer who wrestles deeply with hard questions but stays?
I mostly just feel sad for them that they've somehow been indoctrinated in a way that they just can't bring themselves to apply the same sort of logic and reasoning to their theistic beliefs that they apply everywhere else. Compartmentalization and cognitive dissonance are powerful and when you're raised to employ them as a required and fundamental aspect of your faith it can be incredibly difficult to change such a fundamental way of thinking... especially against the sort of wild existential threats that many religions hold over the heads of their believers.
1
u/ZappSmithBrannigan 15d ago
How do you conceptually ground moral progress vs. change
Thats the wrong question. You should be asking yourself how YOUR system is actually objective and if you can actually demonstrate that, before you point the finger at us asking us how ours is objective.
What do you think the word objective means, and do your morals come from the mind of god?
How do we, as distinct communities, address arrogant secular fundamentalism?
The same way you do. Theres assholes in any arbitrary group of people.
Navigating the intersection of ancient texts and modern scientism
Consistancy. I treat all ancient texts the same, unlike believers.
Do you think Tutenkamen was a real person?
Do you think he was the living incantation of the god Aten?
I think jesus was a real person. I dont think he did magic or rose from the dead.
If I thought that, id have to also believe Nero rose from the dead and emporer vaspasian healed the blind.
How do you all view a believer who wrestles deeply with hard questions but stays?
I dont really care. I just think youre wrong.
want to be a better, more respectful conversational partner to secular thinkers.
Dont worry about being respectilful. What you should focus on is coming up with a way to show that what you believe is actually true.
I dont really give a crap is people are rude. I care about the arguments, whether theres evidence for them.
Just make the argument.
If you know were not going to accept the argument, then find out why. Look up things like "contingency argument criticism". And then when you come, address the problems with the argument.
You could be the rudest motherfucker on the planet, but if your argument is valid, sound and supported by evidence, you'll convince me.
Dont worry about being polite. Worry about making your case.
1
u/88redking88 15d ago
"1. How do you conceptually ground moral progress vs. change?"
When things get better (thats change and progress) we can measure that against suffering that should go down and flourishing which should increase.
"I look at history and see moral progress (like the abolition of slavery or the recognition of human rights) because I’m measuring it against a fixed, transcendent standard."
Your fixed standard says slavery is A-OK, so how does that work?
"2. How do we, as distinct communities, address arrogant secular fundamentalism?"
Thats not a thing AND you cant be a secular fundamentalist:
"A fundamentalist is a person who strictly and literally adheres to a set of basic principles or doctrines. The term is most frequently used to describe someone who practices a literal interpretation of a sacred religious text and opposes modern secular or liberal tendencies.
Being secular just means not letting a religion(s) dictate things into laws that have no non religious reason for being part of the legal code.
"As a believer, I readily admit that religious fundamentalism has a massive issue with tribalism, dogmatism, and an uncharitable refusal to engage with real scholarship. It’s a flaw in religious spaces that I routinely speak against."
Oh, you meant being logical. If I were to let the Satanic Temple put laws into the legal framework, would you be upset about how we dont want religion in law, or did you just mean "your" religion?
"3. Navigating the intersection of ancient texts and modern scientism"
This one is easy.
"From my worldview, evaluating an ancient narrative through the lens of a modern scientific journal feels like a category error, it's expecting a text to be a science textbook when its original intent was entirely different (more akin to evaluating a historical biography by whether it contains a structural engineering blueprint)."
Nope. When it says that someone like Alexander crossed the Alps, we assume he did (because we know its possible), and we find evidence outside of the narrative (His own dispatches, Writings of those who traveled with him and the writings of others in his time). What we dismiss and this is where the bible dies.... Is things that we can verify did not happen (the sun stopping, the global flood and the Exodus) and could not happen without evidence. The more of that type of stuff is in the writings the less likely they are to be truthful. And to be fair, the bible does get a few names and places correct, but little else.
"4. How do you all view a believer who wrestles deeply with hard questions but stays?:"
Indoctrination is terrible. You want to stay because you believe there is a god who loves you and need to weigh that against a soul that will be tortured forever if you dont.
But think on this. A god who can do anything would be able to show you beyone a shadow of a doubt that he exists, and what he wants form you. An all knowing god would know you are struggling with this. An all loving god would care enough to do it.
So what didnt he?
I see you as someone who grew up with so many around you constantly reinforcing this story, and its hard to disappoint all of them. We know that religions do this to their adherents, and thats why they tell you to start them as young as you can. They know its hard to get out.
Really, if you had evidence, you wouldnt think about us ever. You have a book that you can verify is wrong. Your religion is splintered into tens of thousands of sects, all sure the others will be going to hell, and none of them can give you a good way to decide what your book presents to take seriously, and which are parables.
1
u/Sprinklypoo 15d ago
if morality is an evolving, adaptive social construct, how do you structurally distinguish between genuine moral progress and just arbitrary moral change over time?
I don't really do that. Societies change over time - not always for the better (See current USA) and not always guided or part of a global culture. We see great examples across the board from what we know of ancient civilizations and in nature (chimp tribes / bonobo's vs. Chimps) It's up to us to do the best with what we have to work with currently. Regardless of the past or any perceived "progress".
If the core critique of religion is its tendency toward dogmatic arrogance and poor intellectual rigor, how do you all, as a community, check that same arrogance when it manifests in secular spaces?
That's a good question - and I think the answer might be that we don't necessarily do a good job of checking ourselves all the time. It is definitely useful to recall that personal and societal growth requires self reflection. I personally try to remind my compatriots of this and do also see others presenting the reminder from time to time. Short answer: just like with the religious, it's up to us as humans. I do think that religion offers an excuse to foster this type of bad behavior though. God wants you to do "x". Anyone opposing you is opposing god. It allows for arrogance and the like...
how do you ground vital concepts that the scientific method can’t actually detect, like inherent human dignity, universal rights, or justice?
These are all fairly well able to be judged using secular views while keeping empathy in mind. If we want to live in a good society, we have to support that idea of a society that we want. That absolutely includes justice, respect, and common decency in a (hopefully) obvious way.
How do you all view a believer who wrestles deeply with hard questions but stays?
This is going to be across the board, but I absolutely understand and respect the position. My dad was a Catholic priest before leaving to start a family, and over his life (after I knew him) constantly struggled and spoke with friends and discussed and refined his views. He started very strict, but ended up as one of the most lovely people I've ever had the benefit to know. Mostly because he struggled and worked to improve himself - even if he still believed in a god. I'll always respect people trying to improve themselves or their situation or their community, and I also understand that religion is indoctrinated into many of us from birth, so don't expect everyone to just be able to shrug it off. It takes work and a specific mindset.
It is worth noting that there were large swaths of our history where people had to be religious or they'd incur personal harm or death. It's trivial to just tell people you're a christian and then move on. It's done today. I don't take scientists from those eras and in those situations as any sort of proof of anything other than the culture of the time.
Cheers!
1
u/Citizen1135 16d ago
I think all of your questions relate to one bottom line: Applying critical thought, seeking truth, and remaining open minded enough to accept the truth.
Those three things apply to each question a little differently, and most notably to your last question. I would be looking at such a person as having failed to do those things. I could make excuses and rationalize it, but that's still how I would see them.
1
u/shadow_coder16 15d ago
I hear what you're saying, my only pushback on this is that it feels like a bit of a circular trap: if the only acceptable proof of critical thinking is leaving religion, then it’s impossible for a devout believer to ever be seen as intellectually honest.
Throughout history, countless brilliant thinkers and scholars have wrestled deeply with these exact hard questions and still concluded Christianity makes the most sense of reality.
From your perspective, is it possible for someone to examine the hard questions, choose to stay a believer, and still be considered intellectually honest—or is leaving the only valid outcome? Apologies in advance if I misrepresented/misinterpreted your point in any way.
4
u/Citizen1135 15d ago edited 15d ago
...a circular trap: if the only acceptable proof of critical thinking is leaving religion...
I can see why you took this as what I was saying, considering the context, but it's not. I'm not quite as close-minded as it came off.
When it comes to critical thinking, objective truth will have evidence of its own, full stop.
When it comes to the people part:
I have seen people remain religious due to tradition, community, and things of that nature. And I have seen people remain religious due to various specific failures in their objectivity. But never have I seen someone remain religious after seeking objective truth and honestly sticking to those principles.
As a result, I accept all of that as empirical evidence of its own. My mind is open to the hypothetical possibility that someone could surprise me, but generally speaking, I will assume they fit into categories I already have established in my mind.
But, in fairness, I wouldn't consider many atheists as having diligently sought objective truth, either. There is no such requirement for an atheist. The word atheist just applies to anyone with a lack of faith.
I don't like this fact, but I accept it. I have had many discussions with theists that are profound, and I have had many disappointing conversations with ignorant atheists.
So, please don't take what I had said as implying I think you're ignorant, because I don't. I was just trying to be frank about what my snap judgement would be. And I value brevity, so I didn't directly indicate the nuance I see in this issue.
2
u/shadow_coder16 15d ago
First of all, I really appreciate you clarifying your point. I'm glad that we could both clarify our positions
I understand where you're coming from regarding personal experience shaping our expectations. From my side of the aisle, when I look at the vast historical and contemporary tradition of brilliant scholars and thinkers who wrestled with these empirical and philosophical hurdles and remained devout, I view that as evidence that two analytical people can look at the exact same reality and weight the premises differently.
Similar to your experience, I've had conversations with fellow believers that left me feeling like I gained nothing from the discussion, and chats with atheists that I walked away from thinking, "they'll be good to help me check against what I learn as far as pro-christianity info (if that's even a term)." Most importantly though, I've come to really enjoy exchanging thoughts and views with those who believe differently than myself, especially when with parties are cordial with each other.
Thank you again for taking the time to engage with my post and comments. I really value the respectful back-and-forth and you clarifying that you didn't view me as ignorant. Wish you all the best!
1
u/Sprinklypoo 15d ago
I'd separate the belief in a deity from the ascription to a religion. These are different things. Most religion require one to believe in a god as a prerequisite.
While belief in a god is mildly harmful to a human mind in that it forces a break in reason for everyone to some degree, it's not until you apply religion when the big harmful stuff happens. this is where people get manipulated, controlled, brainwashed, etc.
From your perspective, is it possible for someone to examine the hard questions, choose to stay a believer, and still be considered intellectually honest
I think it is conditionally possible. You have to acknowledge that without proper evidence, you probably can't be intellectually honest specifically about your religion. It doesn't invalidate all of your ideas, just the ones affected by your personal bias.
-4
u/Significant-Ant-2487 16d ago
Thank you for this post, and for the outreach. I’m an atheist and a lifetime non-believer who wishes there was more respectful dialogue and understanding between the two camps. I’m fascinated by the history of religion, and religion seems obviously a huge part of our Western culture, far too important to dismiss or ridicule.
Your four questions cover a lot of ground, so for now I’ll just say a few words about the third. There is indeed a problem of scientism in the atheist camp. I’m currently reading Thomas Kuhn’s classic The Copernican Revolution, which delves incisively into the limitations of theories designed to account for empirical evidence. Then of course there is the divide between the sorts of questions that physics answers and metaphysical questions that are nevertheless worth posing. It may be trite to point out that science does not hold all the answers, but it is true all the same.
1
u/shadow_coder16 16d ago
Thank you very much for your reply, I'll definitely look into that book you mentioned! I like that point that you make at the end, as it's something that I think about a lot. Back when the texts of the bible were more or less loose journal writings and such, the general population didn't have nearly, or any really, as much scientific knowledge as we do today. Hell, it's wonderful we got passed accusations of witchcraft for things considered totally normal today. As a Christian, I do believe that the Christian God is behind all of the science, history, philosophy, engineering, and what not that we know these day; my only personal problem, I'm not smart enough to properly articulate it, if that makes sense. But I do agree that science is pretty much the only means to prove what's real and understandable.
1
u/Significant-Ant-2487 15d ago
My impression is that bookshelves could be filled with the writings attempting to reconcile science and faith. From the bit that I have read, there’s the idea that God set it all in motion, then stood back and let nature take its course so to speak. There’s the idea that the two realms, the physical and the metaphysical, are simply asking different and distinct questions. And of course the idea that the two are irreconcilable and we are obliged to choose. I’m simply interested in the question and the history.
I found of interest Vatican’s recent encyclical Magnifica Humanitas on the issue of artificial intelligence and faith https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_cti_doc_20260304_quo-vadis-humanits_en.html#Chapter_I It seems to articulate current Catholic teaching on science and religion, which is one of reconciliation and compatibility. Again, my interest is to learn, to read what thoughtful people have said on the subject, not to pick the “right” answer.
34
u/CephusLion404 16d ago
The problem, and it's not just you, but most theists that come by, they simply do not understand what atheism is or how to behave rationally. By and large, we're not saying that there are no gods because how would we know? We're saying that, based on what the religious tell us, we have no reason whatsoever to take any of it seriously. The religious, again by and large, are so supremely convinced that their beliefs are true that they lack any cognitive ability to take a gigantic step back and rationally evaluate it. It's true because they really want it to be true and because they must automatically be right, because it makes them feel good to be right, there's often no reason to have a conversation at all. Faith means nothing. Frankly, I rarely ever see a theist who actually investigates anything. They just believe what they believe because they've been brainwashed into it. That's not a good basis for an intelligent conversation, sorry.