This blog is no longer being updated. About this blog.

Christians Aren’t Perfect

Wednesday, 29 Aug 2007 at 12:46 pm

I saw a very popular bumper sticker this morning. You’ve probably seen it a thousand times yourself. It read “Christians aren’t perfect, just forgiven”. Isn’t this an acknowledgment that Christianity’s only benefit is that your invisible father isn’t pissed at you anymore?

Religion is superfluous. At best it encourages us to express our natural compassion. Most of the time, it just gets in the way.

If you believe that we should keep religion around, your challenge is to name a single, measurable benefit that religion provides that can’t also be provided by a suitable secular organization.

Update: I forgot to credit Christopher Hitchens’ challenge. Mine is just a variation on his theme.

Tags: , ,

35 Comments

  1. Jonathan Blake said,

    August 29, 2007 @ 12:50 pm

    By the way, no one has taken up the challenge to prove that an absolute morality exists. I’m beginning to feel vindicated. ;)

  2. Lincoln Cannon said,

    August 29, 2007 @ 1:46 pm

    I’ll answer your question if you will first define “religion” and “secular”.

    By the way, not all religions advocate absolute morality, and some (like Mormonism) explicitly do not advocate absolute morality.

  3. Lincoln Cannon said,

    August 29, 2007 @ 2:04 pm

    While I’m waiting for you to respond to my question about definitions, I’d like to know what you think of studies that have indicated that religious identification correlates positively with philanthropic acts. I don’t know much about the quality of the studies, but here are a couple examples of journalists referencing them:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1567604,00.html

    http://lfpress.ca/newsstand/News/Columnists/Leishman_Rory/2007/08/04/4393041.html

  4. Jonathan Blake said,

    August 29, 2007 @ 3:32 pm

    More thoughts…

    I know it seems like I’m just being a hater. But I’m honestly perplexed. Some people keep saying that religion helps you be a better person or live a better life. I think it’s one of those things that we hear so often that we believe it uncritically. Does anyone have any solid evidence that religion does those things better than the alternatives? I want to know if God belief really does confer any advantages that cannot be reproduced otherwise.

  5. Amber said,

    August 29, 2007 @ 8:56 pm

    I think it’s all about what you’re looking for. I can look at something and see God and Faith and goodness because of Religion. You can look at the same thing and see the opposite. It’s all about what you want to see. You don’t want to see it so no matter how much anyone talks about it you’re not going to. The same is true with me (but once again in reverse).

    Basically what I’m saying is that it’s not worth my time to have the discussion with you because I know regardless of what I say you’ll find a way to discredit it. Which is fine really- I don’t claim that religion has the corner on the market on all things good- I think that there is more then one way to accomplish a task- I just also believe that for me religion is the best way to do it. (As well as the Testimony thing).

    But I’m fine with you thinking otherwise.

    But I’m willing to bet I’m not the only one who you are ‘challenging’ that feels this way. It’s just not worth the aggravation when it’s not something you really want to hear anyway.
    :)

  6. cybr said,

    August 30, 2007 @ 12:19 am

    Darn, Amber beat me too it. But…

    And the point of me arguing with you when you wouldn’t give my thought on it the time of day is???

  7. Jonathan Blake said,

    August 30, 2007 @ 8:13 am

    Lincoln,

    You’re right to question my definitions. On the individual level, let’s define religion as a belief in the supernatural, and secular as a lack of such beliefs. On the community level, let’s define religion as the institutions enshrining a belief in the supernatural, and secular as an institution that acts without respect to such beliefs.

    Thanks for the links to the articles. I’ll take some time today to digest them and respond.

    Regarding morality, I don’t see Mormonism’s teachings as anything other than absolutist. I’m curious how you see it another way. Please consider posting your thoughts on the Euthyphro thread.

    Amber,

    I understand your feelings. The way I stated my challenge was pretty, well, challenging. I was feeling pretty frustrated yesterday, so that’s how it came out. The frustration isn’t over, but I’m more aware of it. And knowing is half the battle. Go Joe!

    You’re right that I will poke and prod at reasons people give to justify religion’s existence. In return, I hope y’all will poke and prod at my reasons that religion isn’t worth the time. With all the poking and prodding going on, I hope my understanding will be increased, and perhaps even your own. I want to be challenged so that I don’t settle into complacent, biased ideas.

    We each have to pick our battles. Energy is a limited resource, and we have to choose where to spend it. If you feel this isn’t an important way to spend your energy, I understand.

    I also respect the idea that religion is better for some people, but I think many of us just assume that it is. Personally, having always been inside of religion, I didn’t have the perspective to know that religion was hurting me. I assumed (and publicly declared) that my life in religion was much better than my life outside of religion. I really didn’t know. Even in my rebellious moments, I was still inside of religion rebelling against it.

    cybr,

    I’m sorry I’m giving this impression that I’m completely close-minded. You can expect that I will challenge your thoughts, but that’s different than dismissing them outright.

  8. Lincoln Cannon said,

    August 30, 2007 @ 11:34 am

    Jonathan, I posted to the Euthyphro thread more thoughts on the non-absolutist position of Mormon morality.

    On the subject of this thread, if we use the definitions of “religious” and “secular” that you have proposed then I and many other Mormons are not religious. The God worthy of worship and faith, so far as I am concerned, is an entirely natural God. Joseph Smith taught of a natural God, who, “finding himself in the midst of spirits and glory”, “saw fit to institute laws whereby his children might advance like himself”. This God emerged with his environment. This God interacts with the natural world of which he is a part, organizing it rather than creating it from nothing. So far as I am concerned, this God is the product of evolution on a grand scale, and is quite certainly subject to scientific investigation insofar as existential claims are concerned — of course, we should not overlook immanent existential claims (humanistic claims), such as “Christ in you”, which are, in my estimation, the most important aspect of the Mormon God.

    Joseph was not alone among Mormons in describing God and religion in natural terms. Here are thoughts on miracles from a couple Mormon authorities:

    “Miracles cannot be in contravention of natural law, but are wrought through the operation of laws not universally or commonly recognized. Gravitation is everywhere operative, but the local and special application of other agencies may appear to nullify it—as by muscular effort or mechanical impulse a stone is lifted from the ground, poised aloft, or sent hurtling through space. At every stage of the process, however, gravity is in full play, though its effect is modified by that of other and locally superior energy. The human sense of the miraculous wanes as comprehension of the operative process increases.” (James E. Talmage, Jesus the Christ: A Study of the Messiah and His Mission According to Holy Scriptures Both Ancient and Modern (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1983), 143.)

    “A miracle is an occurrence which, first, cannot be repeated at will by man, or, second, is not understood in its cause and effect relationship. History is filled with such miracles. What is more, the whole story of man’s progress is the conversion of “miracles” into controlled and understood events. The airplane and radio would have been miracles, yesterday.” (John A. Widtsoe, Evidences and Reconciliations (Salt Lake City: Improvement Era, 1960), 129.)

  9. Lincoln Cannon said,

    August 30, 2007 @ 12:08 pm

    The document and powerpoint presentation at the following location represent my view of Mormonism, understood from an entirely non-supernatural perspective . . .

    http://transfigurism.org/community/files/11/second_life_20070429/default.aspx

  10. Jonathan Blake said,

    August 30, 2007 @ 4:03 pm

    Lincoln,

    The first article in the Guardian was (as far as I could see) just the author’s unsupported impressions.

    The second was based in part on Arthur C. Brooks study Religious Faith and Charitable Giving. I scanned the study (one of the benefits of working on a university campus: free online journal articles). Brooks found that self-reported high levels of religious participation correlated highly with increased likelihood and amount of charitable giving and volunteering between those who said that they attended religious services at least once a week and those who reported attending only a few times per year or less. The sample population 30,000 “observations” was pulled from within the United States. Brooks speculates that this disparity may be explained by the secularists’ (who are disproportionately liberal) may prefer public programs rather than private charities.

    I don’t have access to Who Really Cares, but apparently there is also a charitable giving disparity along the conservative/liberal spectrum. Conservatives are more likely to give to private charity.

    This is an interesting result. Searching on Google Scholar I found two studies which seem to contradict the studies results: Did the Devil Make Them Do It? and Giving to Secular Causes by the Religious and Nonreligious: An Experimental Test of the Responsiveness of Giving to Subsidies. Interesting reads, but I’ll just assume Brooks’ study got it right.

    I have some questions.

    The study conflates those who don’t attend church often with those who hold secular views. It’s not clear that this helps in our discussion. Among those who don’t attend church, there are many who hold religious beliefs. It may be a stretch to imagine that accounting for those religious non-attenders versus the truly irreligious would significantly change the result, but it should be investigated.

    I won’t push too much on this point, but I wouldn’t assume that giving to private charities is a net good. For example, I think about all that tithing and other money that I’ve given to the Mormon church, and I wonder what good it really did. Even giving to secular charities can sometimes be a waste of time and money. It may seem perverse to question the benefit of such giving of time and money, but its benefit isn’t always obvious. Have you ever wondered where your donated clothes end up?

    It seems that charitable giving and volunteerism is being used as a surrogate for compassion. I also question that assumption. The giving of the religious may be motivated by social pressure, guilt, obligation, and fear of punishment. I’m not trying to look a gift horse in the mouth. I just wouldn’t assume that because someone gives more to charity that they are more compassionate. I wonder if the irreligious are doing something else with their time and money to benefit the world, or are we truly less generous on average?

    Those are my nitpicks. Assuming those nitpicks aren’t valid, my last point is that this doesn’t demonstrate that charitable giving and volunteerism could not be kept at present levels by suitable secular organizations which don’t yet exist. I don’t know why they don’t exists now, but nothing here suggest that they couldn’t exist.

    I realize that I’m setting a very high bar, but I want to provoke thought about a world without religion. Would it really be worse? Perhaps it would, but I want to see why.

  11. Jonathan Blake said,

    August 30, 2007 @ 4:26 pm

    Lincoln,

    I haven’t had a chance to view the presentation, but I’ll do that later. It looks like it should answer a lot of my questions about Mormon transhumanism. That is how the two mesh.

    Mormonism is curious in that it defines spirit as refined matter. Mormonism can be interpreted in a pretty materialistic/naturalistic way. However, for the majority of Mormons, their faith is just as supernaturalistic in practice as most other Christian religions. For example, they pray and expect miracles to intervene in their lives. This may be addressed in your presentation, so forgive me, but there is no evidence for the existence of this spirit which is refined matter. Further, it doesn’t seem to affect our world, at least not in the ways that religion would predict.

    For my purposes here, I’ll adjust my original definition with a clarification. Anyone who prays to an invisible, powerful being and expects their aid is religious.

  12. Lincoln Cannon said,

    August 30, 2007 @ 9:07 pm

    Jonathan, regarding the philanthropy correlation studies, I don’t think you are nitpicking. Those are good questions that should be investigated and answered better. However, I do think the studies are sufficient to demonstrate that the Hitchens Challenge is not so simple as some would like to think.

    In addition, another value of religion is its very real value to individuals. I know many persons that value their religions deeply enough that personal disillusionment, or disillusionment of persons they love, has caused great pain, sometimes to the point of depression (or worse). This unquestionably demonstrates that individuals value religion. Furthermore, given my moral perspectives, that there is no basis for appeals to good or truth apart from communities of individuals, I feel a moral duty to seek a world that allows for all religious beliefs that are not oppressive (admittedly not a simple matter), for no other reason than that individuals value them. In my estimation, a good way to approach this is through preserving the religious esthetic, as much as possible, while improving the underlying practical understanding. Jesus’ approach to Judaism is an example of this. As it’s put in the scriptures, Jesus came not to destroy, but to fulfill the law of Moses. Of course, change happened, but it was of the constructive sort that maintained much of what persons originally valued.

    Regarding your second post, here are a few comments and questions:

    1) I agree that some Mormons believe in a supernatural God. Likewise, there are atheists that believe it’s possible to prove an existential negative. The former is impractical and the latter is irrational, but neither presents the strongest case for its class. In any case, as I’ve mentioned to you before, I am not primarily interested in apologizing for Mormons or theists (or atheists). I have plenty of disagreements (and agreements) with them all. At the end of the day, I consider myself a Mormon, a theist, and a religious person, so your definition of “religion” will have to account for me if we are going to be able to communicate on the matter.

    2) Whether there is evidence for spirit depends entirely on what you are looking for. The Doctrine and Covenants repeatedly associates it with light, for which I SEE plenty of evidence. ;-) In any case, the more interesting part, for me, is the theological position of materialism, which (particularly when combined with the clear case for Mormon naturalism) situates Mormon claims within the bounds of the scientific project.

    3) According to the new definition of “religious”, am I religious if I call an executive of the corporation for which I work on my cell phone and request assistance? Is my child religious if, while closing his eyes, he asks for help in a way that I can assist? Is a therapist religious if she uses neurolinguistic programming to speak to her subconscious, while expecting positive behavioral effects? Perhaps you need to add “extraterrestrial” to your definition? . . . but, of course, not all religious persons pray to extraterrestrials. Some don’t pray (they meditate), some pray to supernatural beings (do those qualify as extraterrestrials — who knows?), and some pray to Gods both transcendent and immanent. Prayer is a complex issue, with many variations among religious persons. The primary target of my prayers is the extent of God manifest in myself and persons around me — yes, we are (at least in part) the hands of heaven. If an extraterrestrial is listening then she counts as one more person around me.

  13. Jonathan Blake said,

    August 31, 2007 @ 11:12 am

    In fairness to Hitchens, his challenge is much less assailable. In his words:

    Let Gerson name one ethical statement made, or one ethical action performed, by a believer that could not have been uttered or done by a nonbeliever. And here is my second challenge. Can any reader of this column think of a wicked statement made, or an evil action performed, precisely because of religious faith? The second question is easy to answer, is it not? The first—I have been asking it for some time—awaits a convincing reply. By what right, then, do the faithful assume this irritating mantle of righteousness? They have as much to apologize for as to explain.

    I am aware of the value that individuals place on their religious views. I would never force them to relinquish them. At the same time, I see a problem with letting those beliefs to go unchallenged if you see them as irrational. I want a world where you can believe what you will, but where we also feel free to challenge a belief that the moon is made of green cheese or that Zeus sits atop Olympus hurling thunderbolts. I want a world full of freethought and dialog, in other words.

    Regarding 1), I wonder why you call yourself Mormon and a theist. ;) Thankfully, we can still have a dialog even if my definition of religion doesn’t include what you believe.

    Regarding 3), I think the important distinction is that in all of the cases you cite, the person could expect to meet the other person face to face. With God, there is no such clear expectation. Some religions may promise that we will see God after we die, but I don’t see any reason that the people making those claims should know what they’re talking about. Other religions clearly teach that we will never see God like we see each other.

  14. Anna said,

    August 31, 2007 @ 1:39 pm

    I plan to respond to your challenge, but I’m at work and don’t have time right now.

  15. cybr said,

    August 31, 2007 @ 11:56 pm

    Lincoln, I’ve been reading over some of the the Mormon Transhumanist Association website. I find it rather interesting, and dare I say familiar with some thoughts I’ve had. I’m waiting my pending account approval because I wanted to bring a thought to you.

  16. mel said,

    September 1, 2007 @ 8:44 am

    I just don’t think it’s that far-fetched to think of religion as a parasite of the human mind (from Dawkins’ conception of the meme); benefiting by taking for itself all the positive of which the human mind is capable — as a cloak — while like-wise benefiting from the negative but without crediting it’s own involvement.

    From this perspective it’s more readily apparent that religion is detrimental to human life while appearing to be beneficial. And without this perspective we are hopelessly befuddled by the delusion that religion makes us good.

  17. Jonathan Blake said,

    September 1, 2007 @ 8:41 pm

    mel,

    As an example of what you’re saying, it seems obvious to me that Abrahamic religion exploits our shame reflexes. It enhances our shame then offers a cure. It takes credit for curing the shame, but scapegoats the Devil or our fallen nature for the shame it caused in the first place.

  18. Lincoln Cannon said,

    September 1, 2007 @ 9:14 pm

    Right. Under the Law, all are sinners . . . but you left out the rest of the story: in Christ, all are saints. Too bad most of us, most of the time, continue to live under the Law.

  19. mel said,

    September 2, 2007 @ 9:15 am

    Exacty.

    Before we have need of a “savior” we must first be convinced of this need. This campaign begins the moment a child is born and never ceases.

  20. Lincoln Cannon said,

    September 2, 2007 @ 12:20 pm

    We do need a savior. We are dying, depressed and oppressing each other. You should be that savior.

  21. clamflats said,

    September 9, 2007 @ 7:12 am

    If one starts to just strip away the basically benign and fantastic from the Abrahamic religions; mental illness is Satanic possesion (Jesus), Native Americans are a Semitic race (Mormonism), Mohammed was assumed to heaven on a winged horse (Islam), the Deity spoke to Moses through the medium of a burning bush (Hebrew), then, add to that list Hitchen’s examples; the slaughter of other “tribes,” the enslavement of the survivors, the mutilation of the genitalia of children, the burning of witches, the condemnation of sexual “deviants” and the eating of certain foods, the opposition to innovations in science and medicine, the mad doctrine of predestination, the deranged accusation against all Jews of the crime of “deicide,” the absurdity of “Limbo,” the horror of suicide-bombing and jihad, and the ethically dubious notion of vicarious redemption by human sacrifice, we are left with the good intentions of religion; service to others, personal identification with the Deity by prayer and meditation and care of the Earth. None of these ideals are opposed by any atheist that I know of.

    Abrahamic religion has been eviscerated by scientific progress and by the humanist ideals, such as those proposed in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. It no longer can provide a cohesive morality without refuting most of its history. It is uneccessary and in the case of Muslim extremists and the majority of its adherents, dangerous. In the case of Christian fundementalists, it is mostly a nuisance and a threat to civil liberties.

    I agree with Amber and Cyr – it is mostly a waste of time to argue about religious beliefs with the believers. The thrust for atheists should be to fight for a separation of religious ideals from the social debate. Hitchens, Harris, et al. try to do this with a mix of sarcasm and logic with mixed results. They are getting the issue the exposure it needs.

  22. Jonathan Blake said,

    September 9, 2007 @ 7:26 am

    clamflats,

    I think a lot of the differences between most humanists and most liberal Christians lie in the Christians’ loyalty to symbols which the humanists associate with the excesses of religious fundamentalism.

    I’m reluctant to give up on presenting the case for atheism. Harris’ and Dawkins’ arguments led me out of religion for which I am truly grateful. I don’t want isolationism to deny someone else that opportunity to choose the light promised by the Enlightenment.

  23. Lincoln Cannon said,

    September 9, 2007 @ 7:42 am

    Jonathan, would you say that, prior to becoming an atheist, you held a rather Protestant- or Catholic-like understanding of God?

    I ask because Dawkins’ arguments, at least as presented in “The God Delusion”, simply do not apply to an authentic Mormon understanding of God (by “authentic”, I am acknowledging that many Mormons, present and past, have held to Protestant- and Catholic-like understandings of God, despite Joseph’s teachings of a pluralistic, emergent and humanistic God). Indeed, Dawkins regularly unintentionally admits that the sort of God taught by Joseph is quite possible. Here is one of several examples of such unintended admittance from his book:

    “Whether we ever get to know them or not, there are very probably alien civilizations that are superhuman, to the point of being god-like in ways that exceed anything a theologian could possibly imagine. Their technical achievements would seem as supernatural to us as ours would seem to a Dark Age peasant transported to the twenty-first century. Imagine his response to a laptop computer, a mobile telephone, a hydrogen bomb or a jumbo jet. As Arthur C. Clarke put it, in his Third Law: ‘Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.’ The miracles wrought by our technology would have seemed to the ancients no less remarkable than the tales of Moses parting the waters, or Jesus walking upon them. The aliens of our SETI signal would be to us like gods, just as missionaries were treated as gods (and exploited the undeserved honour to the hilt) when they turned up in Stone Age cultures bearing guns, telescopes, matches, and almanacs predicting eclipses to the second.

    “In what sense, then, would the most advanced SETI aliens not be gods? In what sense would they be superhuman but not supernatural? In a very important sense, which goes to the heart of this book. The crucial difference between gods and god-like extraterrestrials lies not in their properties but in their provenance. Entities that are complex emough to be intelligent are products of an evolutionary process. No matter how god-like they may seem when we encounter them, they didn’t start that way. Science-fiction authors, such as Daniel F. Galouye in Counterfeit World, have even suggested (and I cannot think how to disprove it) that we live in a computer simulation, set up by some vastly superior civilization. But the simulators themselves would have to come from somewhere. The laws of probability forbid all notions of their spontaneously appearing without simpler antecedents. They probably owe their existence to a (perhaps unfamiliar) version of Darwinian evolution . . .”

    (Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion 72-73)

    Note that he even goes so far as to state, in the first sentence, that their existence is very probable, in direct contradiction to his statement, included in the chapter title, that God almost certainly does not exist. He is addressing another kind of God altogether.

  24. clamflats said,

    September 9, 2007 @ 7:55 am

    Jonathan – I applaud your determination and maybe you’ll be able to pick up a few of the weak-spirited for the cause.

    When it comes to the likes of Pat Robertson, bin Laden and others of strong religious beliefs, you’ve got to admit there is no point in arguing over the number of angels that can fit on the head of a pin. The more important challenge is to remove “faith based” arguments from the legitimate debate of how we humans shall live with each other.

    In the Post’s Gerson – Hitchens exchange, Gerson is reduced to saying that despite his recognition of evolution as the probable truth of earth’s history, he still prefers to believe in a deistic direction of human morality. Well that’s ok by me and I won’t argue with him. It’s amusing to watch a sharp blade like Hitchens cut him up a bit but in the end as long as he doesn’t try to use his religion to justify public policy I’m happy enough to let him fantasize on the truth. Once religion – read Judeo-Christian belief – is removed from Western democratic societies as a basis for social policy we will have the moral basis to refuse to consider other religions as a legitimate source of social policy – read Islam – and defuse the deadly confrontation we, in the West, face.

  25. Jonathan Blake said,

    September 9, 2007 @ 11:31 am

    clamflats,

    You make an interesting point that I hadn’t considered. I agree that we would be better off if the public sphere were off limits to faith-based reasons for policy decisions, but I had never noticed the hypocrisy of demanding that Iraq, for example, become a secular democracy when so much of our rhetoric and policy is not secular. How can we expect them to set aside Islam in the public sphere if we cannot do something similar in our own country?

  26. Lincoln Cannon said,

    September 9, 2007 @ 12:18 pm

    What sort of faith-based arguments do you reject? For example, do you reject arguments stemming from faith in causality and uniformity?

  27. Jonathan Blake said,

    September 9, 2007 @ 3:05 pm

    Lincoln,

    Here’s my dirty little secret: I’ve never read any of the currently popular atheist books by Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Dennet, et al. (no more anyway than the few passages that I’ve read quoted here and there). I became familiar with their arguments through internet videos mostly. Now that I consider myself an atheist, I’ve lost the urge to read most of them. The only that I still want to read are God Is Not Great (because I love to see Hitchens work) and Breaking the Spell (because I’m interested in how religion relates to the function of our mind).

    You’re right that many of their arguments are not aimed at the Mormon God. For example, the problem of evil is easy to counter for the Mormon God simply by saying that he didn’t create everything.

    What caused me to deconvert wasn’t an watertight argument. This is a good thing for me to realize. Rather I built up a sense of the strong improbability that the God in whom I had been taught to believe existed. I remember Why Won’t God Heal Amputees causing me distress. The realization that my prayers hadn’t really been answered all those years struck home. I saw that it was all just confirmation bias for me. Kissing Hank’s Ass was also influential in nurturing my growing sense of the absurdity of my religious faith.

    Regarding which faith-based arguments that I would reject, I should say that I’m using “faith” synonymously with “religion”. I’m proposing secularism. We’d be better off if invoking God in public service was taboo. I think we’d both agree that Bush’s belief that God told him to invade Iraq and his refusal to fund stem cell research are two tragedies caused by a lack of separation between church and state. There’s no clear line to draw, unfortunately, but we’re too heavily influenced by religious dogma at the moment.

  28. Anna said,

    September 13, 2007 @ 4:31 pm

    The issues I’ve had with your “Challenge” were discussed above. So, what’s left? Can you answer your question in reverse?

    I’d say that Christian/religious drug rehabs tend to have better results than secular ones because they replace the drugs with religion (or God). (I have to find some real numbers to support my theory.) Of course, everyone says their program works. My limited experience is this: my sister, a friend’s brother, and my husband’s cousin all have attended rehab. My sister finished in March, and is going strong. She went to a Christian rehab. My friend’s brother also went to rehab dozens of times from the time he was 13. These were expensive, secular institutions. He always ran away, or even if he finished the program, he ended up back on drugs within a few weeks. When he was 19 we went to a Christian program for 12 months. He’s clean for 5 years. And finally, Kevin’s counsin, also in and out of secular rehabs for the past 20 years. Still ends up back on drugs and in jail. This is the best benefit that I can think of. If it’s not the religion that made it work for the first two, what was it? Again, very limited experience on my part.

    More to come on my own blog as I explore the issue for myself. http://www.cottonclippings.com.

  29. Jonathan Blake said,

    September 13, 2007 @ 6:52 pm

    Anna,

    You’ve finally put a feed on your blog so lazy schlubs like me can follow it. I wouldn’t follow my own blog without a feed or email. :)

    I think you’ll find that most rehab centers have pretty low success rates: religious and secular both. A.A. for example will claim about a 33% success rate, but that is of its members, not those who ever went to A.A. for help. I just read an interesting website that A.A. success rate is at about the same level as spontaneous remission (i.e. 3-5%). In other words, the people in A.A. who get better probably would have gotten better anyway. There are others echoing this idea.

    As far as answering the reverse question, I see secularism as the default position. Religion claims to confer benefits to its members. Setting aside those claimed benefits that we can’t test (e.g. heavenly rewards), it’s religion’s job to justify its claims.

    For the sake of discussion, I could cite our U.S. government. It could not function properly as a religious institution because it seeks to treat all equally irrespective of their religion. The practice of science is also secular. It could not do its job properly if biased toward certain preconceived religious ideas. Any given scientist may themselves be religious, but the scientific method combined with peer review is designed to counter any personal bias (even the biases of previously held scientific ideas).

  30. cybr said,

    September 15, 2007 @ 3:22 am

    OK, I’m gonna vent. And, this isn’t going to be the only post I’m gonna vent on either.

    Damn, I’m getting fed up with the asinine generalization you keep giving theists. So, you are almighty because you have compassion without the need for god’s curse or reward. I’ve been pondering how to bring this about for some time but, you arrogant asshole. I’ve got a few years ahead of you on this. And I’ll admit and hope that I’m not the only theist. As a theist (heaven forbid a Mormon at that), after scripture study, mediation, and prayer I had an epiphany. It started with the realization about humility. God wants us to be humble, for those who don’t humble themselves (self realization) then God will humble them. How much more grown is the person who does it him/herself than needs a hefty reminder.

    When Moses went to the mountain to receive the law the first time, Moses asked for the whole law and God basically said “Are you sure?” Moses went down and ended up smashing the original tablets because the people just weren’t ready nor grown up enough. Then, Moses went back up and got the ten commandments and a better understanding.

    Joseph Smith warned others about constantly asking for more commandments and laws to be governed by. A common quote on the matter of leading the people from him was, “Teach them good principles and let them govern themselves.”

    I believe that God wants me to have concern for others and to act on that love for others of my own free will and accord. And that if I rely on the promise of a reward or the fear of punishment, that I will not grow as close to Him and it can hinder my spiritual and personal growth. IE: I’m not doing it cause I have to, and that’s what God wants us to realize. I won’t discount the (to pull a word) temporal and eternal karma of doing good or bad. And yes, it does make me feel good to help others. But, that’s not why I do it.

    Now, am I perfect in my actions and desires in this regard? No, I got a long way to go. But, I’m just tired of the shitty generalization you give to all higher power believing mystics. You sound like the generalization that some theists give about atheists. And, your humanistic self righteous attitude is no better than the damnable theistic beliefs you mock.

  31. Jonathan Blake said,

    September 15, 2007 @ 9:48 am

    Whoa! That was unexpected. :)

    My change of heart to atheism has made me more humble, but if that still leaves me arrogant, then I guess I have some work to do.

    What is one of the first questions that religious people ask theists? “If there’s no God, then why be good?” Dale McGowan, author of Parenting Beyond Belief, related the following story:

    Many religious denominations teach that humankind is inherently sinful — that beneath a thin veneer of civility lurks a boiling depravity, just itching to stretch its legs. We must erect all sorts of protections and precautions to avoid opening the floodgates, lest we crack each others’ heads open to feast on the goo inside, or worse, turn gay. “If not for the seventh commandment,” I once heard a Veneerist proclaim in a debate, “there would be NOTHING to keep me from walking out the door to cheat on my wife!” Nothing? Not love? I wondered. Or commitment? Or simple human decency? If you say so.

    Many religious people belief that without God (and religion), there’s no motivation to be kind and respectful. Some, perhaps, do not hold this belief, but it’s so often repeated that I think it’s fair to characterize this as a theist/religious attitude.

    And yes, it does make me feel good to help others. But, that’s not why I do it.

    Why do you help others then? If you knew for sure that there was no God (I’m not saying that I do), would you still help others?

  32. cybr said,

    September 15, 2007 @ 2:47 pm

    I do it for the benefit of others. Yes, the effect may be positive for me as well. But, my focus is on the cause (or need) and effect (benefit) of the other individual.

    I don’t need a belief in God or religion to show me the sinful (or negative) nature of man. I’ve got history on my side, and it doesn’t seem to make a difference whether religion was involved or not. It’s just an excuse like anything else touted. Both theists and atheists make war. The question I would pose then, is it possible that some of those theists making war aren’t truly theists if they are not worried about punishment if they don’t believe anymore but are just using the belief in God to motivate others? I’m not saying that’s always the case, but it becomes a muddled argument. So it’s gonna be hard for anyone to convince me that being a theist makes you more evil of a person than being an atheist. So, it actually comes down to the person, be they a believer or non-believer.

    For the sake of argument, I believe there is no god, would I still help others? I honestly couldn’t say. Despite my fatalist side, I would hope that I still would only because it is what needs to be done and I hope for a sense of human decency to continue the next person.

    Difference of perspective:

    Human Decency      Light of Christ
-------------  ~=  ------------
Human Nature       Natural Man

    From a true religion and humanistic standpoint, I see the argument become mute between theists and atheists. It becomes a perspective from person to person.

    Speaking of which, I’ll be by with the printer right after class lets out. I was running late and couldn’t make it before.

  33. Jonathan Blake said,

    September 15, 2007 @ 5:51 pm

    I agree with most of what you’re saying. We seem to agree that religion isn’t necessary to be good, or bad.

    The question I would pose then, is it possible that some of those theists making war aren’t truly theists if they are not worried about punishment if they don’t believe anymore but are just using the belief in God to motivate others?

    Certainly that must be the case at least occasionally. But one of the problems with religion is that such rulers can us religion to their purposes.

    So it’s gonna be hard for anyone to convince me that being a theist makes you more evil of a person than being an atheist. So, it actually comes down to the person, be they a believer or non-believer.

    That’s not exactly what I’m saying. I’m saying that religion can make it more difficult to be good. At the very least, it doesn’t help all that much. At the worst, it can be used to justify horrible things. Really any ideology can serve the same purpose: to cause good people to do evil things.

  34. Lincoln Cannon said,

    September 15, 2007 @ 8:56 pm

    If ideologies have power to promote evil, why do they not have power to promote good? Also, why bother calling yourself an atheist?

  35. Jonathan Blake said,

    September 16, 2007 @ 5:55 am

    Let me first define how I’m using ideology:

    1. the body of doctrine, myth, belief, etc., that guides an individual, social movement, institution, class, or large group.
    2. such a body of doctrine, myth, etc., with reference to some political and social plan, as that of fascism, along with the devices for putting it into operation.

    In other words, an ideology as I’m using it is an idea combined with a group willing to carry it out in the world.

    Ideologies can promote good. Ideologies are also unavoidable. Whenever we have a good idea, the social movement which spreads the idea is an ideology. But ideologies seem to breed fanatics who go beyond a balanced view of The Idea. They promote The Idea beyond all reasonable moderation or justification. The Soviet Communists and the Nazi fascists are good examples of ideologies gone bad. The failure of Soviet communism was a failure, in my opinion, of moderation and to keep The Idea within its proper bounds.

    I call myself an atheist more to convey an idea of my beliefs than to identify with a social movement. That’s not to say that atheism can’t be an immoderate ideology. For some, it is.

RSS feed for comments on this post