Why I’m not convinced by arguments that are based on religious belief

Arguments that use god as an underlying premise (e.g. “because Jesus said so”) have no effect on me because I see god as a man-made creation. Similarly, those who attribute certain traits or characteristics to god and claim that man could not possess them independently of god, have no impact on my own beliefs about the world. For example, to suggest that morality is given by god, and that man could not have developed morality independently from god, to me is a non sequitur. If god gives us our morality and man created god, then man has given us our morality.

I understand that few will agree with me, and I don’t offer this posting in order to convince anyone, I simply offer it so that we can understand where we differ. Appeals to a higher authority are meaningless to me because I believe all higher authorities are constructs of man. I hold mankind to be the highest authority we know of, and therefore capable of developing systems of morality, complex cultures, religious orders, etc. If mankind is able to understand morality, for example, why isn’t he also able of originating morality?

Let me try to summarize why man created god (I think these three examples also provide insight into how man created god):

• God is an explanation for the unexplainable. In the early years of man, many unexplainable events occurred like hurricanes, thunderstorms, and human tragedy. The unexplainable nature of these events led early men to attempt an explanation, which usually pointed to some unknown higher power. As society evolved and unexplained events were explained through natural processes, god was given less responsibility in our daily lives.
• God is a useful tool to those who seek to obtain or hold power. Enterprising early humans learned to exploit belief in god by holding themselves up as intermediaries. The shaman, holy man, priest, or medicine man became critical to the functioning of society and was given significant authority over men as a result of a perceived intimacy with god. Warlike peoples often used religious authority as justification for war, and even peaceful institutions like the Catholic Church continue to benefit from the perception of some divine relationship.
• God provides a point of reference when we seek comfort. The act of prayer is a simple way for humans to distance themselves from daily life, focus, and attempt to understand events. By focusing these thoughts on an entity like god, we can feel that we are appealing to a higher power that can somehow influence our thoughts or even alter human hearts.

Note that in these examples it is not relevant if god actually exists, only that the individual and/or society believe God exists. For example, God may hear a prayer and either act or not act. If God does not exist, however, the individual praying still believes God exists, is listening, and will choose to act or not act. To the individual, there is no difference in the outcome, and any outcome reinforces the belief in God. If the prayer is answered (through the course of natural events, because the believer’s act of prayer provided him/her with the way to solve a crisis, or through true divine intervention), the believer’s faith is reinforced. If the prayer is not answered, it’s simply God’s will and the believer’s faith is reinforced because clearly God knows the best outcome.

I’ll take this opportunity to say that I begrudge no one their faith, and while I believe religion can be damaging to individuals in some instances (the micro level), religion is necessary and good for society (the macro level). This post is to reinforce earlier posts of mine urging conservatives to remove the religious foundation for their political arguments because they don’t necessarily appeal to reason and do not convince those who do not share the faith.

-tsc

I keep hearing that we need to look forward to change in 2008. We lost in 2006, but there’s still hope in two years. Why do we need to wait for elections to institute change? Politics isn’t everything. [Inspired by FreedomPress]

Have you heard those polls cited where Americans are happy in their own lives but aren’t happy with where the country is going? Rush Limbaugh often cites these polls and doesn’t understand who is responding to such polls. After all, he argues, how can someone be happy and unhappy at the same time. He chalks it up to the media’s creation of unhappiness based on what we think other people are going through, even though we’re perfectly happy individually. I think that general argument is true, but I would be one of those respondents that says I’m happy and yet feel the country is moving in the wrong direction.

Here’s why: I’m happy with my life and the direction it’s going. For example, my income increases every year, I have skills that I could take to other companies or use to start a business, I’m well educated, I have a happy family (as much as is possible with a teenager), etc. But at the same time, I don’t think our country is on the right track. Judges are overruling the will of the people (either directly or as represented through government officials), juries are awarding millions to undeserving complainants (hot coffee from McDonald’s, anyone?), and socialism continues to permeate the culture in harmful ways (apparently universal healthcare is now inevitable, it’s just a matter of how much it can be contained). Also, I see us coming dangerously close to an appeasement attitude towards militant Islam, following the model of Western Europe and the U.N.

Even with Republicans in office our country is on a dangerous path, so I’m not feeling so good about the country’s prospects. But waiting until 2008 is not the answer. Instead, we as individuals should stand up on a daily basis for what’s right.

Conservatives are generally a quiet folk, and we’re content to let liberal ideas permeate conversations around us because we’re so used to being a minority voice. After all, everything we see on television tells us our ideas are bigoted. Here are some suggestions on how individual conservatives can change the world before the next election (and hopefully after):

• Don’t get out of jury duty. Everyone knows that people on a jury are simply the ones who weren’t smart enough to get out of jury duty. Since conservatives usually work by day, we like to get out of jury duty and focus on more important things in our lives. I’d ask you to accept that jury notice and, when you are impaneled, speak up against those who want to “punish big business” and remind everyone that so-called victims must share in some responsibility (I’m speaking about those who burn themselves with coffee, not true victims of negligence).
• Say Merry Christmas. When you’re shopping this holiday season, say “Merry Christmas” when you get the chance. Something like 95% of Americans celebrate Christmas, even if they don’t do it in the traditional Christian way. And those who don’t celebrate are rarely offended by the statement because they know they’re living in a country where 95% of the citizens celebrate.
• Stand up for what works. Stop making decisions based on what feels right, and tell others to do the same. Things like affirmative action, an increased minimum wage, and raising taxes on the rich sound nice, but none of them work. Demand results, and cast your votes based on those results.
• Speak your mind. We all think we’re in the minority with our conservative opinions, but we’re not. When you hear someone say that Bush lied about Iraq, speak up and say, “No he didn’t.” Then reasonably explain the facts and point them to an objective definition for the word “lie.” There are more conservatives around you than you think, and if we all start to speak up, we’ll realize we’re more numerous than we think. The reason liberals feel free to speak openly is because they hear their words parroted back to them from television. Once we start to parrot each other, conservatives will also feel free to speak up.
• Talk to your kids. Our children are being indoctrinated at the earliest ages. In the last four weeks, for example, we’ve been talking to our ten-year-old about second-hand smoke, global warming, and gay marriage. She already has politically-correct positions on all these issues, and we’ve had to patiently walk her through our opinions and the missing facts from what she’s learned in school. By the way, what did you learn in school when you were ten? Somehow I don’t remember these. Oh yeah, and vote for school vouchers so we can move our kids out of schools that would rather brainwash than teach.

While I respect the notion that our country is in trouble, I reject the idea that we can only change things through elections. Certainly elections are a factor, and one of the most decisive ways to influence national policy, but we don’t have to wait until 2008 to make a difference.

-tsc

On a recent Dennis Prager hour (hour 3 on November 15th), Dennis spoke with Daniel Bennett about his book Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon.  Many of Dennis's questions and comments got me to thinking, and are worthy of discussion here. 

In some cases, I would argue that Mr. Bennett did not argue well for secularism, but in many cases he spoke well.  Given my extra six days to think about a response, I can't fault Bennett for any of his answers during the dialog.  Here is how I would respond to some of Prager's comments:

Dennis Prager: "How do you apply a scientific method to what I fully acknowledge is a statement of faith?"
The Secular Conservative: While this question is clearly aimed at Bennett based on the content of his book, I would simply answer that I would not apply science to disprove a statement of faith.  There are a couple of paths to take from this argument, however.

First, I would argue that science and faith are separate disciplines and should not intertwine.  The most common example is between evolution and creationism.  The science and theory of evolution is not intended to refute the biblical accounts of creation history, and it is reasonable to accept one as a scientific study and the other as an article of faith.  As such, I would not dream of trying to prove or disprove a statement of faith using science.

Second, we could take a different approach and use some scientific method to understand the human act of faith.  For example, the field of neurobiology includes an area of research that examines how the brain behaves during religious experiences, suggesting that the human perception of a religious experience is entirely natural and explainable through scientific methods. 

Similarly, as detailed in his book Religion Explained, Pascal Boyer discusses the cultural and biological need for humans to identify with a supernatural force in order to explain the unexplainable.  It is easy to envision a societal process whereby early cultures explained natural phenomenon using a supernatural entity, evolving that concept into a set of societal rules that helped to maintain order (Leviticus anyone?), and eventually a group of men keen on maintaining power developing an entire theology that kept the masses in line (priesthood).


DP: "Without God behind 'Thou shalt not murder,' murder is not objectively wrong... because if there isn't a transcendent source for morality, morality is a matter of personal opinion... If [moral principles] are just made up by men, then they are no more binding than anything else made by men."
TSC: I'll admit, this is an area that I still struggle with (as some of my early postings suggest).  I wasn't convinced by Bennett's rebuttal about "communal" rules, because often the community is wrong.  Perhaps some day I'll find the definitive answer, but until then, I'll take this in a different direction.

I firmly believe that it's possible for mankind to develop its own morality and does not need some higher authority to first decree one.  My evidence is my own article of faith: that our current moral code was created by man, because god did not create man, man created god.  The human brain is complex and, if you don't begin from a position of faith, it's reasonable to see an early society attributing natural phenomenon to a supernatural entity.   Is it so hard to imagine an early society also creating a mythology around this entity that accounts for creation and develops societal and cultural guidelines.  Therefore, man created god.  Which also means man created the morality supposedly imparted by God.

I know this argument isn't convincing to you, but consider it my own article of faith.  If I can't refute your article of faith, how can you refute mine? ;-)


DP: "Aren't you then afraid that if people abandon faith that chaos and selfishness will prevail?"
TSC: This is one of the key areas where I differ from most secularists.  I believe that religion is an important component of any culture.  Just because I choose not to partake doesn't mean I don't see the value in religious observance, particularly in the area of family, morality, education, and personal fulfillment.


DP: "Imagine your pet that you love and a stranger are both drowning.  Which would you try to save first?  ...Give me a non-religious-based response on why the stranger should be saved before the [pet].  I don't think there is any."
TSC: I think Bennett responded well, but I'll voice my agreement (and my shock that Prager doesn't understand the answer).  The human being is self aware.  Is that enough?  We're special because of our minds; our ability to reason; to define right and wrong let alone understand the difference; and the presence of a conscience.  This uniqueness is reason enough to choose the stranger.

In addition, as a secularist, I have to honor life above all else (naturally I don't believe in an afterlife).  If human life is most precious, then it's an obvious choice to choose the stranger.  For Prager to miss this simple logic reveals an obvious blind spot when it comes to understanding secularism.


Incidentally, I like Prager and frequently agree with him.  I'm not making this entry to disagree with him or to suggest that Bennett was somehow incorrect in his statements.  I just thought they provided a good jumping-off point to discuss some secular topics.

-tsc

The Democrats are creating their own self-fulfilling prophecy with the Iraq war.  They have tried so hard to draw comparisons between Iraq and Vietnam and, with their recent victory, have succeeded.  But perhaps not in the way they intended.

My generation (Gen X) has a couple of clear notions of Vietnam.  We were born after the war and experienced none of the protests and political turmoil.  When I think of Vietnam, I think of defeat.  Our first military defeat.  A defeat that was caused by a lack of political will.

That's what we're experiencing now.  If we lose the war on terrorism -- and in particular the war in Iraq -- it won't be because we don't have the military strength, the advanced technology, or enough troops.  It will be because we have lost the will to win and because our civilian leaders will interfere with the job of the military, inserting political decision-making into the process of crushing our enemies.

When the Democrats first said it, it was because they believed or hoped that Iraq was a quagmire.  But with their constant rhetoric (supported by a fawning media machine), they have undermined support for the military and our mission to defeat those who would kill us.  So the Democrats' political tactics have had actual consequences by undermining the will of the political class, the media, and the American people.

When I was taught about Vietnam, what I took away was that wars cannot be fought by politicians and civilians.  Political leaders should not make military decisions; the military should be given an objective and allowed to accomplish that objective.  We have not learned the lessons of Vietnam. 

-tsc

The Secular Conservative was developed to fill a gap in the current spectrum of conservative debate. Clearly the conservative movement is on the rise, but as a result, so is the religious rhetoric that accompanies the usual conservative dialog. It’s okay to be religious, but supporting a political ideology with religious language does several things:

• Encourages the notion that politics is based simply on belief and emotion, when in fact there are true differences between ideologies with real-world consequences;
• Does a disservice to the conservative ideology by not exploring the logic and reason behind the concepts of smaller government, states’ rights, personal freedom, etc.;
• Reinforces the common understanding that to be conservative, you must also be Christian;
• Alienates a large segment of the population who are not religious;
• Alienates other conservatives who are not religious or practice different forms of religion.

Those first two points are the most important. There are reasons why conservatism is better than liberalism, and none of them have to do with feeling, emotions, or support from the Almighty. Feelings and emotions can be manipulated and can be affected by circumstance, your mood, the weather, etc. And no one has yet demonstrated that God is a Republican. But too often conservatives use God to advocate certain positions when those positions can be equally supported with facts and reason.

Political and religious beliefs naturally intertwine in the minds of individuals because, often, religious belief necessarily drives political ideology. If we were to segment political ideology and religious belief using a simple four-square table, we might see who slips through the cracks. We can see the usual conservative/religious and liberal/secularist groups, but we also see liberal/religious and conservative/secularists. Some might ask if it’s even possible to be liberal AND religious or conservative AND secular, but these reactions simply highlight the biases and stereotypes that have permeated current public dialog. It is possible to be a religious liberal (e.g. Joseph Lieberman) as well as secular and conservative (e.g. The Secular Conservative), and there are real benefits to hearing these marginalized perspectives.

Liberals can continue to marginalize their voting blocks, but conservatives must begin to recognize that in the 21^st century, religious belief is no longer the driving force that it once was. They don’t seem to understand or care that there are secularists among them that believe in conservatism for the sake of conservatism and not because of some decree from the Almighty. This reliance on religious belief to support a political ideology is detrimental to the movement as a whole, and prevents wide adoption among secularists that would agree on the fundamentals of conservatism if they were presented in a religiously-neutral way.

Today’s conservative movement relies too often on a supposed moral authority handed down from God when there are, in fact, logical reasons for choosing a conservative position. By defending conservatism through religious justification, a large segment of the audience is alienated (including liberals who are open to reason) and the speaker does a disservice to the principles on which conservatism is founded. Those that do not share the speaker’s belief are forced to disregard the argument entirely.

Some conservatives may argue that the secular conservative position is not a conservative position at all, but simply a moderate position. A moderate position traditionally involves a selection of social and fiscal positions from each of the two dominant camps. So someone who believes in low tax rates and smaller government, is pro-choice and anti-gun, might be called a moderate. Personally, I’ve always preferred the Rush Limbaugh definition of a moderate as someone who waits for a consensus to form and then joins in without ever taking a firm stance. The secular conservative ideology is not a moderate position because we’re not afraid to take a stance and we are firmly grounded on conservative principles.

Liberals might argue that secularism is defined as the removal of all public displays of religion or spirituality, so the secular conservative ideology is not a secularist point of view. According to the current pop-culture definition, liberals would be right, but they have hijacked the term secular. But secularists who do not have some irrational fear of religion – as I would argue many liberals do – don’t ask that all public religious displays be removed. Instead we enjoy our freedom from religion while encouraging others to enjoy their freedom of religion. Wikipedia provides an excellent summary of secularism.

Religious conservatives might argue that you cannot remove the religious aspects from conservatism because, by definition, conservatism is traditionalism and traditional American values include a Christian belief in God (for an excellent example, see JDComments from last week). As I responded at the time: "Conservative principles are conservative principles regardless of my belief in God. Smaller government, limited taxation, nationalism, equality of opportunity… None of these require a belief in God. Conservatism’s religious origins are not in dispute, but its practice does not depend on continuing religious belief."

The Secular Conservative is committed to presenting conservatism through the lens of reason and logic, which cannot be refuted by a simple lack of belief.

-tsc

I get uncomfortable listening to conservatives that cannot separate their ideology from their faith because they often do not even recognize the difference. This is where the religious right gets its reputation. As conservatives we have an immediate advantage with our ability to debate issues; our friends on the left are stuck with the politics of personal destruction. But in a society where religious freedom is expected, responding with arguments founded upon personal religious belief are non-beneficial. To a secularist like myself, you have opened yourself up to the easiest rebuttal of them all: non-belief. For example, to state that homosexuality is wrong because it is an affront to God (or because the Bible says so; or Christ; or Paul; or the Old Testament) assumes an underlying premise for the belief in God. Remove that premise and the rest of the argument cannot be sustained logically. Perhaps there are justifiable reasons why homosexuality is morally wrong, but supporting those reasons in religious language to a secular audience only detracts from the credibility of the speaker.

Now, I am not ignorant of the fact that polling throughout the U.S. indicates that most Americans continue to have a belief in god (although not necessarily the Judeo/Christian/Islamic God). But, unlike others, I do not automatically interpret this news as proof that the secular perspective is a minority viewpoint. While the most common measure of a religious vs. secular perspective is a person’s stated beliefs, I tend to look towards people’s actions. So while most Americans profess a belief in god, the actions of individual Americans suggest that the secular worldview dominates. How many Catholics attend mass regularly but continue to use birth-control? How many Protestant parents take their teenage daughters to Planned Parenthood for an abortion? How many Muslim women wear low-rise jeans and make-up? How many Jews eat bacon? So let’s all accept that, generally speaking, Americans believe in god. Let’s not, however, assume that those of us who act (and vote) based on a secular viewpoint – even those professing a belief in god – must naturally be liberal.

The conservative movement is real and liberalism, in its present form, is dying. This change that is sweeping the U.S. has come about because of reasoned argument and demonstrated success (or in the case of liberal philosophy, demonstrated failure). And while the Republican party is making great strides in overcoming liberal-generated accusations (e.g. racism, sexism, homophobia), party leaders and mainstream conservative thinkers continue to suggest that to be a conservative, you must also have a devout belief in god. By all means, believe what you believe and shout it from the rooftops (our Constitution will protect you even if the ACLU will not), but don’t imply that there is some religious affiliation required to participate in the conservative movement.

There is room in this world for both ideology and religious belief. When the two sides meet and intertwine, voters become alienated and frustrated by the public dialog. In the public discourse, conservative leaders should demonstrate that ideology and religion are separate concepts by sharing their belief openly and respectfully, while supporting their ideology with reason and logic.

The secular conservative ideology upholds true conservative principles without resorting to religious appeals to justify policy decisions – it separates the religion from the politics. It is a better ideology than traditional conservatism because it recognizes religious differences through an indifference towards religion, while upholding the right to practice religion openly. But recognizing that our society has become more secular over the years, it allows secularists to identify with conservatism on an intellectual level. Perhaps traditional conservatives don’t realize it, but their daily rhetoric makes us secularists feel as though we’re not welcome. Well, we’re coming to the party anyway, and the public dialog will be better as a result.

-tsc

We are a culture of dichotomies: liberal vs. conservative; Republican vs. Democrat; religious vs. secular; evolution vs. creationism. But while we all understand intellectually that these dichotomies are manufactured, each of us persists on making daily judgments based on our emotional acceptance of such black and white distinctions. It’s simply too easy to see a bumper sticker or hear a comment and instantly label someone based on our preconceived ideas of how that person must therefore believe. It’s these labels that are so damaging because they generally trigger hot-button reactions that prevent us from learning about people on an individual basis. And just as there is no such thing as the “average” man or woman, there is no prototypical Conservative or Liberal.

The political reality in the U.S. requires that each of the two major parties target specific voting blocks in order to maintain power. Often these blocks are divided based on demographic data extrapolated from historical voting patterns, but more and more these blocks are created on the basis of black and white distinctions related to specific cultural issues. Abortion is the perfect example where individuals can be labeled as pro-life or pro-choice; if you are not one, then you must be the other. This type of division ignores the possibility that some voters may adhere to neither position exclusively, residing in what we might call a gray area. A dangerous trend in identifying party/ideological loyalists is to create such divisions based on religious belief.

As the major parties have drawn the lines, Republicans are clearly religious while Democrats are undeniably secular. This blatant stereotyping should surprise no one that owns a television; you’ll rarely hear reference to the “religious left” in America. And, by all appearances, the ACLU – as one of the most liberal organizations in the world – is on a crusade to rid the U.S. of any public references to god. And not just “God” (big G), but “god” (little G). Isn’t it true that the only judges willing to stand against the crusade are consistently of the conservative persuasion? But beware the political strategist that adopts these divisions as gospel without first identifying the areas of gray in between.

So let’s state the premise clearly: if we are to be intellectually honest with ourselves we must accept that not all Democrats are secularists and not all religious people are Republicans. I will allow the religious liberals of the country to identify themselves and stand up to be heard but, being of the secular persuasion, I would like to take the opportunity to stand up for the non-religious conservatives of the world.

Unfortunately, the term secular has taken on its own set of negative connotations, but let me state as clearly as I can that secular does not – and should not – stand for anti-religious. I can, of course, only speak for myself, but my non-belief in God does not need to suggest that I harbor some grievance against those who do. After all, the freedom of religion that our Constitution so clearly outlines applies to me as much as to anyone else: I enjoy the freedom from religion. And I begrudge no one their desire to worship in any way they choose, even in public. When I say the Pledge of Allegiance, I can say “under God” with no fear that I have now joined the ranks of the religious right (and the secular liberals among us know this also applies to them, but they have an agenda to promote).

So when I try to find my place in the religious spectrum, I cannot join those on the left because their behavior demonstrates to me that secular really does mean anti-religious – at least to them. I cannot in good conscience support a party that actively tries to remove public and private speech simply because they disagree with the content. Freedom of speech applies equally to secular and religious speech, but our liberal-secular counterparts can’t get past the notion that speaking religiously is some sort of contagious disease that automatically infects those within hearing distance. So while my secular beliefs would appear to be a natural fit for the Democratic party, I cannot abide their form of secularism.

But will the right welcome me with open arms? While I do believe that the Republican party is more accepting of diverse beliefs (can you hear those catcalls from the left?), the implicit expectation that conservatives must believe our country was founded – literally – under God, makes me shudder. Did Christians found the country and develop our revolutionary government? Of course. Did the underlying belief in God and the Judeo/Christian morality play a big part in our beginnings? Once again yes. But as a secularist, I cannot believe that God somehow guided the founding of our country and that we are somehow a chosen people. I can accept that men with diverse beliefs (although generally from the western theology of Christ) began an amazing experiment in self-government and that those beliefs continue to drive our principles of freedom and liberty. But I cannot then accept that we enjoy special protection from The Almighty, as some might claim.

So I find myself in a gray area...