by VorJack
Cracked.com has gotten ambitious and published a list of 10 Things Christians and Atheists Can (And Must) Agree On. And … eh, it’s Cracked.com. Not bad – I’d say he’s usually half right on both sides – but don’t expect anything deep.
For example, they do the classic comparison of theistic villains and Stalin:
Yeah, yeah, I know the Christians are saying that the guy who fights an unjust or needless war is violating God’s law, and thus isn’t a good Christian. Meanwhile, the atheists are saying that Stalin was merely bloodthirsty, separate and apart from his disbelief in a higher power. Both believe, then, that it is a corruption of their belief system that allows unjust slaughter to happen.
The problem is that atheism is not a belief system, and it has no moral dimension. I’m perfectly happy saying that atheists are just as likely to be horrible people as believers. But you can’t corrupt something as simple as atheism: you either hold a belief in a deity or not.
Atheism is clearly no guard against bad behavior, but no one – well, no one sane – has argued that it is.
And some of is is mystifying, for example:
Atheists, even if you reject the idea of God completely and claim to live according only to the cold logic of the physical sciences, you all still live as if the absolute morality of some magical lawgiver were true.
Do what, now?
Sorry, that’s the southern expression of male bafflement. Have I actually claimed to live only by “cold logic”? I’ve got a microwave, I could warm it up. And the idea of dedicating oneself to living within the physical sciences is just … odd. “With the FSM as my witness, I shall always obey the laws of thermodynamics!” … yeah.
But the most painful part is the confusion of categories implied by his statement “absolute morality.” In this, and later paragraphs, he seems to be saying that if you don’t have God, you don’t have a basis for declaring anything morally good or bad. Thousands of years of thought into the matter of morality and ethics just … gone. You need a God or you got nothing.
” But you can corrupt something as simple as atheism: you either hold a belief in a deity or not.”
Don’t you mean ‘can’t corrupt’?
Woop, corrected someone else’s English for the first time!
Yup. Fixed.
I lol’ed. This is going on my Twitter :D
I’d love to know how I live by a moral absolute that doesn’t exist.
I think the article writer is missing the point in #4: “There are good people on both sides.” This isn’t a direct effect of christianity, it’s in spite of christianity. Actually, he makes the same mistake in other places too.
“But the most painful part is the confusion of categories implied by his statement “absolute morality.” In this, and later paragraphs, he seems to be saying that if you don’t have God, you don’t have a basis for declaring anything morally good or bad”
I disagree entirely. in the next sentence or two he goes on to say:
“No, wait. Don’t go away.
When some guy hustles you out of eighty bucks in an ebay scam, you don’t nod and say,
Interesting! This fellow lacks the genetic predisposition toward equitable dealing that generations of sexual selection in favor of social behavior has instilled in the rest of us! A fascinating difference!”
No, you think what that guy did was wrong. You want justice. You think he should have acted differently.”
the point being, far from needing a higher power to give a list of absolute moral codes, believing in right and wrong is hard coded into our DNA. what he is saying is that although christians feel they have the backup of a deity when they are outraged, we both react in, for all intents and purposes, the same way.
Yes but the reaction is based on a morality relative to our current society and place within it. Atheists are happy to say that yes our morality is shaped by a couple basic principles and the moral views of our generation. Christians say they have an “absolute” morality since they say all of their morality is based in their holy text. So while both reactions to a situation are relative the justification for the chrisitans comes across or is taught as an absolute.
This article is basically wasting 5000 word to push the old idea that religion deserve a special treatment and we can all be friends as long as atheists play nice and don’t call bullsh1t when religion is making a stupid claim.
You got it in a nutshell.
Agreed.
Christianity is a philosophical school of thought, and is subject to the same rules as every other philosophical viewpoint.
“Atheism is clearly no guard against bad behavior, but no one – well, no one sane – has argued that it is”
So, apparently, you both agree then. His point appears to be that if we got rid of religion tomorrow, people would still kill one another.
I agree with that. I think atheists who think religion is the root of all evil are wrong. I think the root of all evil is deeper than that and that its expression is often rationalized through religion. But get rid of religion and its expression will be rationalized through something else. Through the absolute authority of the state, perhaps. Or, through science as in the case of eugenics.
It’s disingenuous to say that slaughtering people in the name of eugenics is a misuse of science and then dismiss the claim that slaughtering people in the name of religion is a misuse of religion.
Our propensity for evil is rooted deeper than any of the rationalizations that have been used to justify it.
I personally think that it is the idea of evil itself which is the root of all evil. Once you’ve decided that some one or some group is evil you can then begin to rationalize waging all sorts of atrocities against them.
“But the most painful part is the confusion of categories implied by his statement “absolute morality.” In this, and later paragraphs, he seems to be saying that if you don’t have God, you don’t have a basis for declaring anything morally good or bad.”
I have to agree with Matt. I don’t think he is saying that at all. In fact, just the opposite, that we atheists to in fact believe there is a proper way for people to behave. We atheists would argue that as social creatures, evolution has evolved into us certain behaviors so that deep down in our core there is the ‘rules’ (so to speak) of proper human behavior.
He’s merely arguing that while Christians believe its source is God that both Christians and atheists believe it’s there. We just attribute it to different sources.
Science can be tested and there’s the chance of self-correction Religion has no such impediment.
Um, well, yea. Of course.
I fail to see what that has to do with anything I wrote in my previous post. My post was in no way a defense of religion. Science is a far superior method to understanding the world in which we live. We should work to peacefully reduce the influence religion has on society and on people.
Acknowledging that ‘evil’ would persist even if we eliminated religion all together in no way reduces the importance of reducing the influence of religion. It means that reducing or eliminating the influence of religion is not the only task which lies before us.
“It’s disingenuous to say that slaughtering people in the name of eugenics is a misuse of science and then dismiss the claim that slaughtering people in the name of religion is a misuse of religion.”
How can you tell when religion is being “misused”?
How can you tell that science is being misused from a moral -non-scientific?- point of view?
;-)
I don’t agree with the sentence for other reasons. science doesn’t claim to have the answer about what is correct from that moral point of view while religion does. A scientific guiding an eugenesis project -wich could be harmful for our adaptability and genetic diversity as a species- is not doing science: he is doing politics and simply using science as a tool. On the other hand some religious crimes are done as part of religion.
His point appears to be that if we got rid of religion tomorrow, LESS people would still kill one another.
Fixed that for ya ;)
Fewer.
The difference between your examples of religion and science is that religion includes a moral system whereas science does not. I think in some cases eugenics does NOT misuse science (although more often it does, simply by getting the facts wrong), but it does reach bad moral conclusions. And as was pointed out above, how can one determine if religion is being “misused.” Surely the user would claim that the religion was being used correctly!
I agree with your statement of science not being a moral system.
Science doesn’t tell us anything about whether or not we should slaughter one another. It can only inform us as to the most effective ways in which to go about which ever we choose do.
I should not have used the eugenics example as it has unfortunately detracted from the larger point.
Yeah, it’s based on those very old, very tiring stereotypes.
And in the original article, Falwell was a dick. WBC protesters picket funerals of non-famous people they never met. Big difference. I was a Christian at the time and shed no tears for Falwell. A fellow Christian friend sent me a text message saying something to the effect of “Ding dong the witch is dead.” It wasn’t just atheists.
Hey Laura, long time no see.
I’ve been super busy! And now that I’m not so busy, my internet connection sucks, so I don’t get around the blogs quite like I used to.
You absence has created an unacceptable lack of redhead on the site.
Seconded.
These sorts of things are difficult to deal with. I mean, what can you do, accuse cracked.com of being juvenile and cartoonish?
I found it tedious and boring, the guy tried to be kind of serious but light-hearted, and was too whiny and bossy and clueless on his topic. I liked the captioned pictures ok.
The author just doesnt get the point. Most atheists could care less about what fairy tales you believe in.
As long as Christians fight about abortion rights, science in the classroom, gay rights, keeping prayer out of government, using public lands to display religious iconography, having god on our money, etc, we will keep responding to those arguments.
Atheism is responding, not attacking. Were pushing back. If the Christianity became something that people do privately, and won’t try to push on others, all the vocal atheists would go back to doing work they actually enjoy doing. We didn’t start this fight, but were sure as hell going to finish it.
“In this, and later paragraphs, he seems to be saying that if you don’t have God, you don’t have a basis for declaring anything morally good or bad.”
It’s like denying non believers in humanity to be humane or to be a human, is one of the most derogatory statement against humanity by those who believe in it.
Imagine if someone like a Cardinal said something like that…
http://richarddawkins.net/videos/3846-atheists-39-not-fully-human-39-says-cardinal-cormac-murphy-o-39-connor
he said that before of after he screwed up the choir boy?
What did he do? I didn’t know this.
Sometimes I found myself disagreeing with the author’s explanation of the main points, but as far as the points themselves, I think they are spot on. Especially, “Celebrating the death of somebody you disagreed with pretty much makes you a dick.”
You realize there is no hell and this is the best we can do. A particular person is no longer a menace to the living. Christians do what they can to make sure you know you’re going to hell – if they think so. Newspapers even put headlines on the front page when someone dies, asserting they are in hell now. It doesn’t happen very often, but it’s usually for someone we all agree is vile, like Timothy McVeigh and Saddam Hussein. There’s no hell, but it’s on the front of the news, on every cover, celebrating the death of someone.
See also: most executions. Christians and/or anyone in favor of the death penalty celebrate the deaths of people quite a lot more, the value of life to them is to take someone else’s life. I don’t agree, I think to be locked up for the rest of your life and grow old in prison has got to be the worse punishment. Wherever executions happen, perhaps whole communities support and celebrate in some fashion, the death of someone. In the meantime, a lot of us are considered fair game to taunt with the eternal punishment of hell in the afterlife, all christians.
One slimy preacher died and we’re the monsters?
I’m not calling anyone a monster. However, I don’t see the unkind actions of others as a justification for me to act unkindly towards them. And I mean, I’m not always at 100% when it comes to this (especially when Falwell died), but I do realize that taking pleasure in the deaths of others is not something I want to be a part of and is something I would like to avoid as much as possible. I wouldn’t want other people saying horrible things and making a joyous spectacle about my dead loved ones (regardless of how bad or terrible they might have been), so I think I owe it to other people to refrain from doing the same.
But that’s just me; I can’t make that decision for anyone else, but at the same time I don’t think that the decision other people make should justify or influence my own.
I didn’t mean to say you called anyone a monster. The author of the article seemed a little sensitive about it, went on a little rant about how awful atheists are to do such a thing, never once to stop and think that is something we hear from Christians a lot. They are glad when people die a lot and are pretty sure who is going to hell who’s not the same as what they believe.
What you said is right and good and all, but I wish the author had reacted with a more balanced account rather than with a rant over this toward atheists after all the books at the bookstore and the avatars, and cheering the death of Jerry Falwell on his blog.
It seems he got the whole idea for this article by noticing a lot more about atheism out in the past decade, and without really understanding why that might be, he wants us to be quiet and listen to some kindergarten lesson about getting along with each other. While I can appreciate someone’s wish that we all live in peace and accept one another, there’s a lot more to it than that we merely disagree on something trivial like a Miller Lite debate. It seems he is sparked mostly by the growing voice of atheism, and spends a good deal of the article blaming us for stuff he doesn’t like to see without really seeing the same in Christians.
“Christians do what they can to make sure you know you’re going to hell”
And are you positive that ALL Christians do what they can to make sure you know you’re going to hell? What about the ones who don’t believe in hell?
Oh, now, no. Not all atheists cheer for the death of someone they disagree with either. The author went on a rant over one smiley face on his blog, quite the embarrassing lecture. Meanwhile overlooked this fairly common attitude amongst his fellow Christians, their off-hand disregard for human life and afterlife all the time, whenever they want. I don’t know what Christians don’t believe in hell, but I guess it’s possible they don’t all favor capital punishment either. The author didn’t take time for them, just the atheists in his intro, and a really lazy article overall.
True christians do that. If you don’t you are not a true christian.
(sorry, I wanted for long to use the “no true scotchman” fallacy the other way for once)
“Celebrating the death of somebody you disagreed with pretty much makes you a dick.”
While I’m not one to celebrate anyone’s death, to say that anyone with a moral bone in their body ‘disagreed’ with Falwell is overwhelmingly understating the point. It is clearly more complicated than that, and to paint it as simple cheerleading of one side over the other is, I think, gross misrepresentation.
He lost me a bunch of times, but REALLY lost me in point 5 when he said “nobody hates the idea of a creator”. I think Christopher Hitchens would take serious issue with that. He often compares the Christian God to Big Brother, or Kim Jung Il. Not only does he not believe there is a God, he sincerely hopes there ISN’T one. And I’m right there with him. I can’t understand why anybody wants that to be true, let alone believes it.
When I read that sentence, I saw him referring more to a generic creator “something” as opposed to specifically the Christian god, and in that context I think the statement becomes a little more understandable.
I disagree. Any supposed Creator had to have created all of the universe, its good and its bad, and is responsible for horrendous suffering through all of known nature. The creator of rainbows and sunshine would have also created mudslides, sabretooth tigers and pedophile priests. For a lot of his/her/its creations, it wasn’t worth it, and they never got a say.
“Do what, now?” etc…
I think where he erred in this point is pointing out to atheists that atheists are moral. I realize he’s addressing christians and atheists and trying to meet us in the middle of our similarities, but this is a weak and misdirected point.
In the first half of the point, he addresses christians with the troubleshooting example: not possessed by demons, just broken. For the atheist reading this article, we realize no christian will deny using science and technology whenever they wish, but also how they demonstrate cognitive dissonance about why they revert to reality when it’s more convenient. So here, you’re not telling either one of us anything we didn’t know before, but I don’t think it’s getting through to the christian. I guess it would be asking too much to point it out for them to see how magical things aren’t, after all.
Next, addressing atheists that we have morals and don’t calculate the scientific reason why something is right or wrong. We know we have morals. Christians don’t always think so. It’s ridiculous and condescending to point the finger at us and get us to admit we have the capacity to be moral. I read a couple of this guy’s other articles, and contrasting with most cracked articles, it’s too much personal observation and not enough research, even for cracked, and not even funny enough to compensate for being weak.
Let’s see.
No you can’t. Well perhaps you could try to do bad things “in the name of atheism,” but that wouldn’t mean anything. People don’t do particular acts because there is no God, or because they do not practice a religion. That makes no sense. Furthermore, you cannot “corrupt” a lack of something.
Close, but no cigar. It is the case that many Christians really believe in Christianity, but there aren’t many people that can say they “believe in atheism,” because that doesn’t really mean anything. But the rest of this point made it pretty clear what Wong meant and I definitely agree with it.
In most cases I will grant this, but I do think he understates the difference. But the rest of this point pisses me off. For example:
No I do not, thank you very much. In fact, I frequently make a point of explaining that one does not need to hold that there are specific conceptual ideal worlds toward which we can strive nor particular universal sets of absolute laws in order to make comparative moral judgments. There is no perfect horse, there is no God, and there is no universal kingdom of ends. These concepts all make an unsupported teleological assumption with which many if not most atheists fundamentally disagree.
While some atheists believe monotony to be important (I am not one of them), few would consider sex to be “sacred” in the way he means. Sex is generally considered important because of the emotional attachment it creates or represents. If sex holds a special position, it is society that puts it there, not nature.
And again, thousands of years of moral relativism, out the window. I personally think teleology in general is extremely flawed, not just the anthropomorphism of God.
Well of course; it’s hard to imagine anybody disagreeing with that.
Well not all of them! But yes, many Christians are offended by the very existence of atheists, and perhaps the reverse is true to some extent.
However, he overstates the similarity. Exclusionary positions like Christianity in general tend to be offensive and discriminatory, whereas the the atheist position is nothing like this. And while atheists do claim that Christians will not go to heaven, they do not claim that this is the Christians’ fault, that this represents a failing in any way, or that they will be damned eternally. This is a pretty huge difference if you ask me.
This is probably true, and I think it is a common and unsurprising psychological tendency in all disagreements. But ironically, he exaggerates how much we tend to exaggerate things.
Of course. But there are some bad examples given here.
But you will find that while this is in practice true, many Christians disagree with it in theory. They truly feel that the new testament is unchanging, despite it being itself a replacement of the old testament. And calling it “the entire point” of Christianity is a huge exaggeration.
What a load of crap. This reminds me of that stupid line from “G.I. Joe” (one of the worst movies of the decade, by the way), where the girl explains that she does not believe in emotions because “they cannot be tested or explained.” Love and emotions can be complex and intense and important and yet still be explainable and reducible. There is no contradiction here.
Let’s please not go there. This is supposed to be ten things everybody agrees on, not ten philosophically complex topics reduced to a single assertion. This time David Wong triumphs over determinists with his totally novel critique of discipline. Ugh.
Well, focusing on negative examples is an ineffectual argument, but it doesn’t make you stupid. Despite the common expression, your IQ does not actually drop when making inane arguments. But let’s move on.
I’m not sure I can agree with this.
The only really good thing Wong claims religion has “brought tot he table” is basic empathy and morals, but neither of these is an essentially religious position, nor is it a root of religion. I think it is no stretch to believe that while religion has many origins, none of them were initially about empathy. I don’t even understand how this makes historical sense.
Obviously religion has become closely tied with these concepts, and has been for millennia. But this is not the relevant question, as no religious idea or act “brought these about” in any sense.
Of course, nobody can dispute that religious people have done good things and come up with good ideas, and even that many good ideas were initially tied to religious convictions, but I see no evidence that these were a result of religion and not merely inadvertently tied to religion.
Number 10 is missing? I don’t understand. Or was he counting the bold statement in the lead as number zero?
“While some atheists believe monotony to be important (I am not one of them), few would consider sex to be “sacred” in the way he means.”
I laughed at “monotony.”
Hahaha, Freudian slip much?
You know what else is important to some atheists (but not me)? Monopoly and botany and trigonometry and the Watusi. Lol, fun typo is fun.
“I guess you could just call them crazy, but it’s a little silly to use that word when believers are the norm in human population.”
And that makes mass delusion okay? This guy is annoying.
The whole time he’s basically like “Come on, guys, its something they REALLY believe it, just let them be their crazy fundie selves and quit being soulless assholes.”