I think it a great falsehood to claim that religion can do anything to enhance morality or ethics in the individual.
That's clearly not the case, as there are moral and ethical systems which can be attributed to the religious paradigms that have provided the inspiration for humanity to reach for the highest ideals. The same exists within humanist models.
One cannot deny that if an exemplar of humanity at its noblest can claim a religious foundation and motive — then the case is made.
And the same can be said of purely humanist systems.
On the other hand, non-religious social structures have carried out the most devastating pogroms in the last century.
So the fault lies with man, not with his moral and ethical structures, but his inability to live up to them.
Setting aside the many that call themselves believers yet never think about it nor formally practice it and the fewer that are atheist but have never used the word and do not dwell on ethical, spiritual or philosophical issues, we are left with a much smaller group to which such a question has meaning.
You can't simply dismiss those who dwell on ethical, spiritual and philosophical issues, and find religion meaningful, as irrelevant to anything but a self-serving and one-sided argument.
Here I posit that the goodness found in people who actively try to do good is a part of their innate nature and has nothing to do with any religion save when that person is driven to do so for an ultimately selfish desire of gaining gods favour.
And if one views living one's life according to a selfless ideal in accord with the Divine Will, then perhaps such selflessness is not motivated by gain but a sense of freedom, for the sake of one's self and for one's neighbour?
To understand what human 'goodness' really is we can do no better than look at the social structure of our closest ape cousins, the Bonobo's, and how social altruism is used in their societies. They do use it in grooming, food sharing, compassion for sick or injured and in play. But every act of empathy is also selfish in that it is a necessitated part of behaviour for acceptance within a group.
Yet the animal kingdom also demonstrates a capacity for self-sacrifice?
So social group, a church for example, acts of an altruistic nature are used for cohesion and for status. So in fact there is a double dose of selfish purpose for the religiouslly motivated.
Assuming that 'society' is a fiction, a fabrication, and not the manifestation of the many instances of a universal nature acting towards a profound expression of that nature by the evident harmony in all its parts — nowhere in any species can be found, naturally, a species acting collectively for any other than purely selfish reasons. Nowhere, anywhere, is there the demonstrable notion in any 'collective' of the advancement and enhancement of the collective for the mutual benefit of all engaged?
Now the good atheist that knows he/she is an atheist. Such people are normally pretty intelligent. They read a lot and widely and represent probably less than 1% of the global population.
The same can be said of the good believer — except for the percentage. That bit's relative.
Yet they tend to be people at the leading edge of mans bold adventure into the future.
I, er, tend to regard that as a subjective and somewhat assumptive sampling.
They are the ones making progress happen. Most atheists do not even like to discuss religion, their eyes roll back and conversation is impossible.
Nicholas Cusanus (1401-1464) was regarded as a genius by Keppler, Galileo and Copernicus. He posited the mathematical infinite, suggested the earth was not the centre of the universe, and is regarded as one of the greatest thinkers of his age and a profound influence on politics, science, philosophy (Leibnitz, Kant ...) and religion ... he was also a cardinal. I reckon I could drag up someone of equal stature from any and every age. He proposed the concept of the infinitesimal and of relative motion. He was the first to use concave lenses to correct myopia. His writings were essential for Leibniz's discovery of calculus as well as Cantor's later work on infinity. He laid the foundation for accepting elliptical orbits before they were proved.
This is because they are too smart to take the corrupt tomes of even more corrupt religious institutions as any meaningful basis on which to model ones life.
I think many in the world would say the wisdom contained in the primary texts of the great religious traditions stand equal to any philosophical treatise.
The many atheists that marvel and glow inside at buds bursting forth in spring or some new cosmic phenomenon caught on the Hubble telescope are those that love being alive.
Any you think the believer suffers no such
joie de vivre?
And a person who believes in being so alive can only be said to love life.
What about the person who believes life has a purpose and is not the product of chance — do they not love the idea of life itself?
This is a tiny percentage though that do not do it for some pseudo-tribal religious paradigm but just because they love life itself. No god required. And such people are often the true Global Villagers, the people with subscriptions to New Internationalist and Amnesty International. The people cataloguing the truth and hopefully pushing mankind incrementally toward a more 'humane' future.
So we're limiting the Global Village to the profile of a subscriber of NI and AI?
I do not say that churches cannot be good.
You seem to be saying that society as such is a bad thing.
On the very local level when they remain small and out of the radar of those that make a lucrative career out of their congregation, then churches can and do do a good job of focusing a community effort of very real value. But churches as a whole are full of superfluous gibberish, internal politics and people that rarely think for themselves. And are usually aligned to massive institutions each claiming with stupifying ridiculousness to represent gods true will.
The same criticism can be laid at any institution's door.
But I remain firm it must be one of man.s primary abitions to throw off the yolk(sic) of superfluous primitive superstitions and embrace a love of life for love of lifes sake.
May I point out that my particular primitive superstition suggests I do just that? Indeed, that 'there' — in the love of it — is where real life is?
Also there’s nothing stopping an ethical Atheist from applying there ethics to any current theological system, people with esoteric understanding usually do try apply there knowledge to current theological systems.
And one bloke with a fair degree of esoteric understanding who applies his ethics to an athiest philosophical system — Benedict XVI's critique of contemporary philosophical relativism in the West is a matter of record. I would suggest the Dalai Lama also has some interesting contributions. And the Chief Rabbi. I know the Archbishop of Canterbury has put more than a few noses out of joint.
So I guess the main difference is the inability for an ethical atheist to spread and teach there knowledge to wide range of people. After all an important part of life and living is not just learning but teaching.
If, as you suggest, the love of life directed towards another is intrinsically selfish and morally bankrupt — that altruism applied beyond the self is a sham, then I suggest the paradigm you offer is not very inviting.
Thomas
