State religion

It's Sunday, but instead of complaining about George Will's complaining–we'll do that tomorrow maybe–let's just read Michael Medved and marvel:

Actually, there’s little chance that atheists will succeed in placing one of their own in the White House at any time in the foreseeable future, and it continues to make powerful sense for voters to shun potential presidents who deny the existence of God. An atheist may be a good person, a good politician, a good family man (or woman), and even a good patriot, but a publicly proclaimed non-believer as president would, for three reasons, be bad for the country.

Hollowness and Hypocrisy at State Occasions. As Constitutional scholars all point out, the Presidency uniquely combines the two functions of head of government (like the British Prime Minister) and head of state (like the Queen of England). POTUS not only appoints cabinet members and shapes foreign policy and delivers addresses to Congress, but also presides over solemn and ceremonial occasions. Just as the Queen plays a formal role as head of the Church of England, the President functions as head of the “Church of America” – that informal, tolerant but profoundly important civic religion that dominates all our national holidays and historic milestones. For instance, try to imagine an atheist president issuing the annual Thanksgiving proclamation. To whom would he extend thanks in the name of his grateful nation –-the Indians in Massachusetts?

Well, he probably ought to thank the Indians in Massachusetts, but that's another matter.  The more basic point is this: last time I checked, there is no "Church of America," so that analogy does even rise to the level of weakness.  Solemn occasions are somewhat like church–you can't get up and go to the bathroom, you sit or stand watching a podium where someone talks–but that's about it.  Besides, if those things make something "church," if only analogously, then as one who talks somewhat ceremoniously to a group of people who may or may not have to go to the bathroom, I'm a priest. 

52 thoughts on “State religion”

  1. So, I can’t be solemn and stately if I have no belief in a Christian God. I would be shallow and hypocritical, when I may in fact feel deeply respectful of this nation’s history and its achievements. I may be the most humanistic and ethical individual, the Phronimos, who holds that the lives of people are of the highest value and need to be be preserved and praised, and yet if I did not do so with the moral authority that I am granted with a public demonstration of quasi-religious faith, I am illegitimate. 

  2. Amazing what kind of tortured reasoning people will go through to justify their bigotry.

  3. jcasey, good catch. The analogy is ridiculous. Jem, maybe you did not know this, but Medved shares your lack of solemnity: he does not believe in the Christian God. Nevyn, bigotry? Where did you see that in this article?

  4. Thanksgiving, I know, is a complete side issue here, and yet if you’ll permit, I’d like to comment at length on that subject; for there is a very cogent answer to the question Michael Medved asks, one which I think strikes at the heart of America’s history.
    When, in May of 1606, the first American settlers arrived in Jamestown, what they found in the Virginia Tidewater Region exceeded their most extravagant speculations. The soil was unbelievably fertile, and the whole Tidewater Region was full of resources. The oceans teemed with seafood, the woodlands were filled with game. Yet within half a year only 38 of the original 104 settlers were still alive, the rest having succumbed to famine. Not two years later, 500 more people were sent to refresh the devastated settlers. Within half a year, the overwhelming majority of these new arrivals — 440, to be precise — had died of starvation or disease, and cannibalism was not unheard of. The resources were still as rich as ever, hardly tapped, in fact, and yet according to George Percy, himself an early Jamestown settler: “The cause was want of providence, industrie … and not the barennesse and defect of the Country, as is generally supposed.”
    The original American settlers had explicitly adopted a socialist ideology — specifically, communal ownership of property. As a result, most of these settlers starved to death, or were killed off by disease — the very same problem, it turns out, that has been occurring steadily three centuries later in every communist country that’s collectivized its economy, particularly the agriculture. The people of Jamestown had no financial stake in their endeavors; indeed, they were little more than indentured servants, and everything they produced went into a public pool. Working harder and longer, therefore, did not benefit any one person any more. So these people responded exactly as humans will in such situations: they did not work harder — any of them. As Tom Bethel notes in his excellent book on this subject (The Noblest Triumph): lack of work and “industrie” go hand-in-hand with lack of property rights. 
    Quoting the historian Philip Bruce, in an article about these same Jamestown settlers: “They did not have even a modified interest in the soil … Everything produced by them went into the [public] store, in which they had no ownership.” Thus, they all grew idle—“even those who were known to be exceptionally motivated and strong-willed.”
    “The absence of property rights — and of the work/reward nexus that such rights create — completely destroyed the work ethic of the settlers” (How Capitalism Saved America,  Thomas Dilorenzo).
    So the British government, who financed this colonization, sent, in 1611, a man named Sir Thomas Dale to serve as “High Marshal of the Virginian Colony.” This is what Mr. Dale observed:
    “He noted that although most of the settlers had starved to death, the remaining ones were spending much of their time playing games in the streets, and he immediately identified the problem: the system of communal ownership.”  High Marshal Sir Thomas Dale immediately set about rectifying the situation: he gave every man “three acres of land for each to own unto himself.” Simultaneously, he did away with pooling into a communal treasury. He officially enacted private property, and public ownership was abolished.
    Almost overnight, the colony began to prosper.
    The notorious free-rider problem of socialism vanished, as each person became his own master and bore the full brunt of inaction and non-productivity. At the same time, each and every person had incentive to work harder since harder work meant greater prosperity and a direct benefit to each from that labor. “As soon as the settlers were thrown upon their own resources, and each freeman had acquired the right of owning property, the colonists quickly developed what became the distinguishing characteristic of Americans—and aptitude for all kinds of craftsmanship coupled with an innate genius for experimentation and invention” (Mathew Anderson, Virginia, The Old Dominion, Vol. 1). Other remarkable things started happening as well:
    “The Jamestown colonists had originally implored the Indians to sell them corn, but the Indians looked down on the settlers because [the settlers] were barely capable of growing corn, thanks to their communistic economics. After the introduction of private property and the resulting transformation, however, the Indians began coming to the colonists to acquire corn in return for furs and other items” (Ibid).
    A peaceful system of free-trade began.
    The division of labor — the sine qua non of private property, since it promotes specialization of labor, insofar as each is no longer forced to produce all his own food, and since each person can now trade specialty items for specialty products that others produce — was born in Jamestown. In addition to the explosion of prosperity that this brought, there was also peace: it made no sense for either side — Indians or settlers — to war with the other now that free-trade was advantageous to each. Prior to Sir Thomas Dale’s institution of private property, however, the settlers “used to steal from the Indians,” and “beg from them,” which “the Indians resented.” In Jamestown, the institution of private property changed this.
    But there’s more to the story:
    Not many years later, in November of 1620, another group of American settlers, 101 to be exact, who were not financed by the British government, arrived on the good ship Mayflower, in Cape Cod, Massachusetts. These Pilgrims moved a short distance away to a place called Plymouth. Interestingly, the Pilgrims were not at all unaware of the early Jamestown disaster, the starvation, the disease, the famine, and so on. But they were unaware of the cause. Accordingly, they proceeded to make the exact same mistake that the settlers of Jamestown had made: collective ownership of the property. And they, too, paid dearly for it – i.e. within a few months, over half of them had died of starvation and disease. Over the course of the next three years, 100 more settlers arrived from England to Plymouth, all of whom were barely able to feed themselves. As Plymouth Colony Governor William Bradford wrote in his famous Of Plymouth Plantation: “Many [settlers] sold away their clothes and bed coverings to the Indians; others (so base were they) became servants of the Indians … and fetch them water for a capful of corn; others fell to plain stealing, both day and night, from the Indians…. In the end, they came to that misery that some starved to and died with cold and hunger. One in gathering shellfish was so weak as he stuck fast in the mud and was found dead in the place.”
    This same William Bradford would soon solve “the ruin and dissolution of his colony” in the same way that Sir Thomas Dale had saved Jamestown. Here’s another famous passage from William Bradford’s book:
    “After much debate of things … [it was decided that the Pilgrims] should set corn every man for his own particular, and in that regard trust to themselves … And so assigned to every family a parcel of land, for present use. This had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been by any means the Governor or any other could use, and saved him a great deal of trouble, and gave far better content. The women now went willingly into the field, and took their little ones with them to set corn; which before would allege weakness and inability; whom to have compelled would have been thought great tyranny and oppression.”
    Bradford came to fully grasp how lack of property rights negates the work incentive: “For [men] and men’s wives” (he said) “to be commanded to do service for other men, as dressing their meat, washing their clothe, etc., they deemed it a kind of slavery, neither could many husband brook it.” And so “common course was abandoned in favor of setting every man for his own particular,” meaning private property. Instantaneously, those who had been indolent became “very industrious,” so much so that woman and men who had “previously pleaded frailty worked long and hard—once they saw how they and their families could benefit from such hard work.”
    William Bradford went on to correctly identify the source of the “disastrous problem” as “that conceit of Plato’s,” who, in contrast to Aristotle, advocated collectivism and collective ownership of land, which, as history has now repeatedly proved, is pure poison to any society that implements it. Bradford even wrote later that those who “mistakenly believed” that communal property could “make people happy and flourishing” imagined themselves “wiser than God.”
    “The Pilgrims had encountered what is called the free-rider problem, which is difficult to solve without dividing property into individual or family-sized units. And this is the course of action that William Bradford wisely took” (The Noblest Triumph, Tom Bethel).
    Wisely indeed – for it set the trend that would make America unique: a land of independence, industriousness, ingenuity, experimentation, invention, genius, greatness — in a phrase, a land of freedom, unlike anything in all world history.
    Whom, then, if you’re an atheist, do you give thanks to on Thanksgiving? The early American people who came to understand the philosophical roots of freedom: i.e. private property and the unalienable right to life, which is so stridently opposed today, as witnessed by my latest interrogator.
    Thanks for your indulgence. 

     

  5. "A publicly proclaimed black as president would, for three reasons, be bad for the country"
    "A publicly proclaimed Jew as president would, for three reasons, be bad for the country""A publicly proclaimed gay as president would, for three reasons, be bad for the country" BN, finish one of these sentences for me and don’t look like a bigot. If you can do that, I’ll reconsider my position.  This from Americans United for the Separation of Church and State,"Medved recently decided to give bigotry a boost by pointing out why Americans would be wise to reject an atheist as president…First, Medved argues that an atheist president would be a hypocrite
    on state occasions where some type of recognition of religion is called
    for, such as Thanksgiving Day proclamations.
    Actually, America’s tradition of civil religion offers such watered
    down and bland religiosity that an atheist probably could lead it
    comfortably. But if not, he or she could always emulate Thomas
    Jefferson and refuse to issue religious proclamations. It seems like
    that’s a job for religious leaders anyway.
    Medved’s second reason is that the American people would feel
    disconnected from an atheist president, and that would make it hard for
    the president to be effective. He overlooks that Americans feel
    disconnected from presidents pretty often – but usually for political
    reasons. President George W. Bush is a very religious man, but 70
    percent of the population tells pollsters they don’t approve of the job
    he’s doing.
    My guess is that if an atheist were elected and managed the economy
    well, kept our nation out of unnecessary wars, addressed global warming
    and dealt with the host of domestic and international problems we face,
    the American people would be content. The people want results, not a
    steady stream of bland, civil religion pablum.
    Medved’s final reason is his most unusual: An atheist president, he
    argues, would anger Islamic terrorists who could then argue
    convincingly that America is indeed an infidel nation.
    Of course, Muslim extremists won’t be happy unless we elect a Muslim
    extremist as president. A woman president would raise their ire because
    women are supposed to stay home and do what men tell them to. A Jewish
    president would infuriate them because they hate Jews. So we shouldn’t
    elect women and Jews either, right?"  

  6. Nevyn, since we are talking about this article … not Michael Medved entire life, let’s look at what he is saying. First of all, if the poll he is quoting is correct, half of the country will not vote for an atheist as a president regardless how qualified he/she might be for the job. Should we then accuse half of America of bigotry? Second of all, maybe you did not know this but he is a Jewish person, so I guess he’s a bigot also against his people as well.  I understand why Americans United for the Separation of Church and State are so pissed off; however, when you bad logic like the one the use in that quote you gave me … then my friend I can take them seriously. "
    My guess is that if an atheist were elected and managed the economy
    well, kept our nation out of unnecessary wars, addressed global warming
    and dealt with the host of domestic and international problems we face,
    the American people would be content." So, I guess the only qualification for being a president is to be atheist and ….hocus pocus …. he’ll be the greatest ever. Seriously man, open your eyes, and reason with your mind, not your heart.

  7. Miss Priss, Thanksgiving Day is defined by the dictionary this way: "a day appointed for giving thanks for divine goodness" (italics mine). I guess you can redefine the meaning of it to include everyone in it. Very interesting perspective of the success of the early Americans. Socialism and humanism share the same view of human nature: we are born good only the environment corrupts us. On the other hand, "the philosophical roots of freedom" start with a right view of human nature: we are born selfish and self-interested. That’s the reason why private property works. Now, to make the argument religious as well, you can see that the 2nd assumption is recognized by Christianity as well: human nature was corrupted as of result of the original sin. 

  8. Wow. Are you a real person in the world? You actually believe these things you’re saying? Oi. OK, let’s look at your reasoning skills, hotshot. I’ll set aside the fact that you ignored my invitation to finish one of the sentences provided and not look like a bigot. "half of the country will not vote for an atheist as a president
    regardless how qualified he/she might be for the job. Should we then
    accuse half of America of bigotry?"Uh, yeah. I’ll bet 0% would have voted for a black woman as president in 1850. Were they bigoted? Hell yes. The number of people who share your whackjob position does not make you position less bigoted. "he is a Jewish person, so I guess he’s a bigot also against his people as well"What, exactly, are you talking about? Bigots can’t be part of a minority? This is just silly. I’ll give you this though; as a Jew, you’d think he’d be more sensitive to bigotry considering the history of the Jewish people. BTW, I know jack about this guy or his life. I’m going off of his article only. "I guess the only qualification for being a president is to be atheist
    and ….hocus pocus …. he’ll be the greatest ever"Um, the quote says that if an atheist president did a good job, people would probably be happy. How do you get "atheist=greatest ever"  out of that? Do you even know what a straw man is? I mean, geez. Reason your way out of that paper bag and people might take you seriously.

  9.    I think that electing a creationist president would be bad for the country.  Does that make me a bigot?

  10. Good question. That depends on what you mean by creationist and why you think that’s a bad thing. If you mean young Earth creationist, I accept your challenge. “A creationist as president would be bad for America for three reasons”1.    They deny observable facts about the world2.    This fundamental misunderstanding of the world gives us reasons to suspect their reasoning skills 3.    They believe scriptural evidence trumps secular evidenceYou see, what makes this different from bigotry is the unified set of beliefs that come with being a creationist that do not come with being gay, a woman, black, atheist, etc. When you use a label to ascribe absurd views and identify people interchangeably, that’s bigotry. Try it with other labels and see how it works.

  11. Yes, I was thinking of the young Earth model.  I’m not sure that we can group people that are atheist with people that are gay, black or female.  It seems that atheism is a conclusion reached through reason or deduced inductively.  If that is the case then I would say there is room to disagree or reject without that rejection rising to the level of bigotry, as in the other cases.

  12. It depends on how you make the connection between the rejection, your reasons, and the relevance to the situation in question (in this case, US president). Muddying up these connections, purposefully obfuscating them, etc, makes you a bigot. The OP ed author failed miserably to make these connections and looked like a bigot. Also, you’ll find people who will press you on the way you take atheism as different from being gay, black, female. I put them together because they’re not necessarily things you have a choice about. For me, at least, I have no reason to believe in any gods. I can’t choose to believe there is a god any more than I can choose to believe there is a fairy in my garden or no computer in front of me.  Cheers 

  13. Nevyn, you tell me if you see a contradiction between these 2 quotes: "A typical result came from the Zogby Poll
    of January 21, 2008, indicating that 50% of voters rule out supporting
    “a presidential candidate who doesn’t believe in God”
    ; only 20% said
    they could definitely vote for such a contender. Meanwhile, an
    overwhelming majority of 78% (86% of women and 67% of men) say they
    take a “positive view” of candidates citing Scripture when discussing
    political problems."  And here is the part of the quote you offered: "
    My guess is that if an atheist were elected and managed the economy well, kept our nation out of unnecessary wars, addressed global warming and dealt with the host of domestic and international problems we face, the American people would be content. The people want results, not a steady stream of bland, civil religion pablum." If half of US are bigots like you claim, then how would they be content with having an atheist president? If I strongly believe that openly gay people should not serve as clergy in the church, does that make me a bigot? If I think that a blind person should not drive, does that make me a bigot? The question is an honest question: is there something that disqualify you to run for president if you’re an atheist? I’ll rather take an open atheist that preserves the freedom of religion than a hypocrite that uses religion for his own advantage. There are many things that come with our religious or non-religious beliefs. Ideas have consequences. Different ideas have different consequences.   

  14. I see no contradiction. The AU says people will care more about results. They’re actually giving the American people some credit. " If I strongly believe that openly gay people should not serve as clergy in the church, does that make me a bigot?" Probably, yes. Care to give some reasons to justify your position? Pushing your bigotry onto the church does not absolve you of responsibility for the bigotry. "If I think that a blind person should not drive, does that make me a bigot?"See, this is why you look like an idiot. It’s been clearly explained above that bigotry "depends on how you make the connection between the rejection, your
    reasons, and the relevance to the situation in question" I’d say being blind is relevant to driving. How relevant is being gay or being a woman to being a priest?

  15. That was exactly my point. Just because you don’t see the relevance, it does not mean that it does not exist. It’s easy to see the relevance on my example with the blind person. It might not be that obvious for you to see the relevance on first example (openly gay person/clergy). I guess I assumed too much. I assumed you know the relevance. I don’t want to transform our debate into a debate about homosexuality.I just like to suggest that maybe you should give people the benefit of the doubt before you accuse them of bigotry. Like I said before, just because you don’t see the relevance, it does not mean that it does not exist. jcasey was right to point out that the Medved is wrong on of the 3 points of relevance that he tries to make. However, I think his second point can be a valid one: people want to vote for people that share some of their beliefs. Should that be the only reason? No. However, you can’t accuse people of bigotry because if everything else is equal they will prefer someone that shares some of their important beliefs.

  16. You seem to be working under the assumption that there is some relevance, yet you refuse to provide it despite being asked to do so several times. The more you avoid it, the more you look like a bigot yourself. If your relevance is piss poor, like the OpEd writer’s, you look like a bigot. It’s up to the person making the claim to come up with a good reason to support the contention that all X are Y (all atheists are bad for the presidency). That sure sounds bigoted, as do many blanket negative statements about minorities. Why should I give you the benefit of the doubt that you have good reasons for that position? Especially when you’re talking about a minority that suffers from bigotry all the time. Especially when your writing in a national newspaper, etc. etc. As to the second point, saying that people want to vote in such-and-such a way is a descriptive claim, not a justification.

  17. Please be tolerant with my intolerance. Ok, I’ll give you some arguments. But first, let me make clear that I never claimed that “all atheists are bad for the presidency”. It is their track record that scares me personally: Hitler, Stalin, Mao. I am not arguing that all atheists are evil or bad people. I am arguing, however, that the atrocities committed by them are consistent with their world view. Here is what Viktor Frankl, a survivor of the Holocaust had to say about that:“If we present man with a concept of man which is not true, we may well corrupt him. When we present him as an automation of reflexes, as a mind machine, as a bundle of instincts, as a pawn of drive and reactions, as a mere product of heredity and environment, we feed the nihilism to which modern man is, in any case, prone. I became acquainted with the last state of corruption in my second concentration camp, Auschwitz. The gas chambers of Auschwitz were the ultimate consequence of the theory that man is nothing but the product of heredity and environment—or, as the Nazis like to say, ‘of blood and soil.’ I am absolutely convinced that the gas chambers of Auschwitz, Treblinka, and Maidanek were ultimately prepared not in some ministry or other in Berlin, but rather at the desks and lecture halls of nihilistic scientists and philosophers.” Now, not all atheists are nihilists. I know that. However, in general, the belief in the intrinsic moral value of humans, the belief in an objective and absolute moral standard, the belief that human nature is corrupted, the belief that we’re responsible for our actions not only to people but to God, the belief in free will, the belief that unborn babies deserve to live are beliefs shared by people that believe in God. So if an atheist comes and shares a majority of these beliefs (based of course on his/her foundation), then by all means, he/she will have my vote. See, it’s not “atheist” president that scares me, it’s a president that lives consistent with his/her atheism that does.

  18. Oh, I see the problem here. You’re completely ignorant of philosophy in general and atheism in particular. It may not be your fault, as you seem to have been taken in by specious arguments made by morons. Here’s a few sources for you. After you educate yourself, maybe we can continue.
    http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismmyths/p/AtheismKills.htm
    Also, your ignorance of history makes you look especially ass-hat stupid. Hitler was Catholic. “Gott Mitt Uns”

  19. Well, Hitler certainly was not a practicing Catholic. Nonetheless, BN, many Catholics have for centuries acted in ways “consistent” with their view and laid waste to the lives of many non-Catholics–Jews and Muslims in particular. But the more basic problem, as I think Nevyn suggests, in your picture of Atheism is that you’ve somehow confused with nihilism.

  20. Nevyn suggests that and more. I’m willing to accept he wasn’t a “practicing” member of the Catholic Church, but he was a member and was never excommunicated by the church. He also drenched his speeches with God talk, said how he was following “God’s law” doing “God’s work” and on and on. And one more thing, there’s nothing “consistent” with atheism except not believing in any gods.

  21. Which is all not to mention that Hitler was a devotee of Friedrich Nietzsche (see that stick leaning against his podium during his speeches? That’s Nietzsche’s walking stick, given to him by Nietzsche’s sister), who is often incorrectly viewed as the father of nihilism. Hitler imagined himself as much a nihilistic, neo-Nietzschean ubermensch. as he did anything else.

  22. For some reason my comment was cut off. Onward.

    In short, Hitler’s atheism or Catholicism says nothing about his system of governance. He was quite obviously a crazy person who could neither read Nietzsche correctly, nor interpret the doctrines of faith coherently. Moreover, we live in America, and there’s a caveat in our Constitution that says “there shall be no religious test” for the office of the presidency.

  23. pmayo says speaking about pmayo in the third person is the best way to speak about pmayo.

  24. George likes his chicken spicy! Anywho, the Nietzsche Hitler would have had access to was already poisoned by his wicked sibling. I wonder what happened to that walking stick?

  25. I guess my problem arises in the use of the word itself.
    Bigotry defined by Random House’s Unabridged is a “stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one’s own.” This seems like an all-encompassing term. I happen to have a stubborn and complete intolerance of Nazism, totalitarianism and creationism. According to the current definition that makes me a bigot. Ultimately, I want to say that someone can be wrong(i.e. Medved) or a complete douchebag(again Medved) without neccesarily being considered a bigot, but with the overly broad nature of the word that appears to be impossible. Therefore, I propose doing away with the word altogether.

  26. Good point jnovy–perhaps the scope of bigotry ought to be limited to “unjustified, stubborn and complete intolerance.” Intolerance of Nazism, I think, is justified, after all.

  27. Nevyn, even though I should ignore you and your “rich” vocabulary, I will answer you. First of all, atheism is defined as “the doctrine or belief that there is no God”. I think we agree on this. If we do, then an atheist is a person that does believes that there is no God. Hitler was a person that believed that there is no God. Therefore, he was an atheist. The fact that he was/wasn’t a Catholic is not relevant. There are plenty of people that belong to different religious organizations and don’t believe in God.

    John, I never claimed that nihilism=atheism. Read my post. My argument was simple to point out that nihilism and atheism share the same view of humans: “the theory that man is nothing but the product of heredity and environment—or, as the Nazis like to say, ‘of blood and soil.’” Here is what Bertrand Russell said: “that man is the product of causes that had no prevision of the end they were achieving. That his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves, his beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms. That no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling can preserve an individual life beyond the grave.”
    Nietzsche once said: “ When one gives up the Christian faith, one pulls the right to Christian morality out from under one’s feet. This morality is by no means self-evident. Christianity is a system, a whole view of things thought out together. By breaking one main concept out of it, the faith in God, one breaks the whole. It stands or falls with faith in God.”

    Please understand me, I realize that most people here share agnostic/atheistic views, I don’t claim that all people who don’t believe in God are immoral. What I do claim is, however, that morality as goodness cannot be justified with atheistic presuppositions. You can’t have moral duty without a moral law. And there is no moral law in an amoral world.

    Shakespeare was right:
    “ … right and wrong
    (Between whose endless jar justice resides)
    Should lose their names, and so should justice too.
    Then everything includes itself in power,
    Power into will, will into appetite;
    And appetite, and universal wolf,
    So doubly seconded with will and power,
    Must make perforce an universal prey,
    And last eat up himself.”

    So, yes I would vote for an atheist as president of US if he/she makes me understand on what basis he/she defines justice, good and evil, and how can she/he justify the view that mankind is more than “DNA; it’s nothing good or bad, no such thing as morality or evil …we’re all dancing to our DNA.” (Richard Dawkins of Oxford University)

  28. BN,

    People here have lots of different views on God. Some are obviously atheists. Some are not. The view, however, that in the absence of God there is no moral basis is not obvious, to say the least. I’d suggest, as I do to everyone who makes this claim, that you read Plato’s Euthyphro. Therein he addresses the claims you’ve been making.

    While you may not intend to equate Atheism and Nihilism, you have: “Please understand me, I realize that most people here share agnostic/atheistic views, I don’t claim that all people who don’t believe in God are immoral. What I do claim is, however, that morality as goodness cannot be justified with atheistic presuppositions. You can’t have moral duty without a moral law. And there is no moral law in an amoral world.”

    If one is an Atheist, then one is a nihilist, according to you. That’s false, obviously.

  29. jcasey, I read Plato’s Euthyphro and strongly recommend it as well. Also Plato’s Republic is another classic when it comes to the discussion of justice. I’m not sure to what claims you refer; you probably refer to Euthphro’s dilemma. First of all, how does the atheist escape that? And second of all, I’m sure that you aware of the many coherent and intelligent answers given already to it. There are plenty of smarter people than me that have answer it. Here is a link that has a nice/civilized discussion on this specific topic: http://www.rzim.org/resources/essay_arttext.php?id=4

    Can you please explain me which of those statements from my last argument are wrong? Can you have moral duty without a moral law? Can you have a moral law in an amoral world? How does an atheist argue for a moral world?

  30. Gee BN, perhaps I should reread my text, but the Euthyphro problem is not for the atheist, but for the theist.

    You seem to be claiming that one can only have morality under theism. That, as the Euthyphro points out, is not obviously the case.

    If you don’t know what non-theistic morality is, then perhaps you should reread Plato, Aristotle, Kant, Mill, and so on.

    But I’d say not only is your claim false–but it’s circular: how can one have morality in an amoral world simply begs the question–i.e., it presumes what you’re attempting to show. Of course you can’t have morality in an amoral world, it’s amoral, QED.

  31. jcasey, this is not an argument: “can you have a moral law in an amoral world?”. It’s the definition of amoral … without a moral law. It’s the same as saying: Can a bachelor be married? nothing more. It’s just an explanation that was needed to link the amoral world with moral duty.
    Since it deals with the question:”Is Atheistic Morality Necessarily Subjective?” that is relevant to our discussion, please read the article that I linked.
    Also, I never claimed that attempts to non-theistic morality were not made. Am I suppose to prove them all wrong? Let me reiterate what I already said:”However, in general, the belief in the intrinsic moral value of humans, the belief in an objective and absolute moral standard, the belief that human nature is corrupted, the belief that we’re responsible for our actions not only to people but to God, the belief in free will, the belief that unborn babies deserve to live are beliefs shared by people that believe in God. So if an atheist comes and shares a majority of these beliefs (based of course on his/her foundation), then by all means, he/she will have my vote.”

  32. Sorry BN,

    I took the first claim as an attempted reductio (i.e., you of course cannot have a moral law in an amoral world!!!!). That claim is hardly like the Bachelor claim. But the way you have stated above is even more silly.

    Again, you’ve presumed the atheist has no basis for morality. This is just false. And as for the other point, you’ve dismissed non-theistic morality out of hand (as inadequate by definition). This claim begs the question against the atheist.

    Finally, I think I get the point that you’d vote for an atheist who shares your moral position. Fine. Lots of theists don’t share that perspective.

  33. I had a similar discussion with an op-ed writer for the UWM Post, who continually claimed that the opposite of moral absolutism is moral relativism, which somehow implies amorality. It was frustrating to say the least. The problem seems to be that people equate an external moral law solely with theism. This is not necessarily the case. Additionally, people tend to confuse internal moral law (if they even accept that possibility) as inherently subjective and therefore non-universalizable. Kant would strongly disagree. BN, if you are trying to figure out how one can have a moral duty, and be the source of the moral law, and it not be relativistic, read Kant’s Groundwork.

  34. jcasey, amorality us defined as “lacking a belief in the absolute existence of any moral laws”. This, again, is not an argument, or claim, it’s the definition.
    The claim that you argue against is probably the one that it’s there in my argument, but it’s not explicitly states: all atheists are believe in an amoral world. Jem is right in his assessment, I’m arguing the same thing: “there is no other external moral law” except theism. Now, Jem, you do realize that Kant is a theist, and he has one argument that proves God’s existence (argument from morality).

  35. BN,

    Again, that atheism presupposes amorality by definition is wrong.

    Kant may have been a theist personally, but his moral thought does not depend on theism, as Jem pointed out.

  36. jcasey, I agree with you. I never gave my argument for one of my main premises. To say that atheism presupposes amorality by definition is wrong. I completely agree. My premise was that: All atheists believe in an amoral world. I did not give one argument to prove this. I assumed that this is obvious. Well, as you already pointed out … it might not be that obvious. I did study Kant in school, but I can’t argue against him because I don’t know enough about it; however, the objection that I had at the time was: if this is an internal moral law, (even universal like Jem argues) how is it binding? In other words, what should motivate anyone to follow it?

  37. Hello BN,

    Please forgive my cunctation. I’ve been rather indisposed lately. But a good musician never blames her instrument, I know.

    In response to the first sentence of your excellent comment to me (way above): not all dictionaries, my dear, not all of them. Webster, for instance, in his Third College Edition, defines Thanksgiving this way: “An annual U.S. holiday observed on the fourth Thursday of November as a day of giving thanks and feasting: it commemorates the Pilgrims’ celebration of the good harvest of 1621.” It’s not, therefore, really a question of, as you say, me “redefining it.”

    Thankfully, however, we needn’t volley semantics on this subject — a practice I loathe –because I, for one, can personally testify to feeling genuinely thankful each and every year on Thanksgiving Day, despite the fact that I’m a devout atheist.

    I also love America, land of the free, land of the dollar bill. I love America for what she once represented, and still retains the vestiges of: the unalienable right to life, liberty, and property. None of which remotely presupposes a divine presence. In fact, in the words of the underrated Samuel Adams: “Rights form a logical unity: all are evident branches of, rather than deductions from, the duty of self-preservation, commonly called the first law of nature.” It is Aristotle, the implicit father of the Enlightenment that America owes it succes to, and not Plato, who in my opinion provides us with the most persuasive argument for a biocentric good. The Nicomachean Ethics, which is in large part devoted to refuting Plato’s Idea of Good, sums up the agathon this way: “It has been well said that the agathon is that at which all things aim”; and a few chapters later: “We may define [agathon] as that for the sake of which everything else is done.” If you’re interested in a more detailed explication of this sea-deep notion, please read my answer to a question someone fairly recently put to me: “Can morality exist if you kill God?” You’ll find it listed in The Best of Miss Priss.

    Best of all possible regards.

  38. Now, Jem, you do realize that Kant is a theist, and he has one argument that proves God’s existence (argument from morality).

    Not exactly. One, yes, Kant is a theist; two, his morality does not require theism, only that once think and only think, of a being embodying the highest good, third, Kant did not prove the existence of God, not did he want to. The only argument for God’s existence that held any allure for him was the cosmological argument, yet even this he put aside, as he felt that the three classic arguments for the existence of God–the teleological, the cosmological, and the ontological–all depend on the basic assumption that existence names a perfection, a basic tenet of the ontological argument that Kant dispenses with in the First Critique, the Prolegomena, and <Religion Within the Limits of Reason Alone. Kant argues, mostly in the Groundwork and the Second Critique, that some ideal of the highest good must be maintained in order for me to aspire to be moral , but this is only a concept of pure practical reason, not an actual thing and to move from that pure concept to an assertion of its existence, on Kant’s view, is an illegitimate use of reason. While reason cannot surmount the idea of a highest good and of a necessary being, these remain pure concepts, the “necessary limiting concepts of reason,” and their existence can never be inferred from the concept. Existential propositions can only be made synthetically, that is, in a unification of experience and the understanding. Since I can have no experience of a pure concept, I can never infer the existence of said concept. He disallows, therefore, any theoretical proof of God’s existence.

  39. Miss Priss,

    I am slightly disturbed, and slightly intrigued by you…I don’t think I’ve ever read a more pompous writer, and yet I almost enjoy reading what you have to say. What are you?

  40. Right, Phil. Until you read the Critique of Practical Reason. Then he says some weird stuff. In the preface (5:4) Kant says:

    “Now, the concept of freedom, insofar as its reality is proved by and apodicitic law of practical reason, constitutes the keystone of the whole structure of a system of pure reason, even speculative reason; and all other concepts (those of God and immortality), which as mere ideas remain without support in the latter [speculative reason], now attach themselves to this concept [freedom] and with it and by means of it get stability and objective reality, that is, their possibility is proved by this: that freedom is real, for this idea reveals itself through the moral law.”

    So, basically Kant thinks that the establishment of freedom as having objective reality (not just acting under the idea of freedom) will merge theoretical and practical reason, and will certify the reality of God’s existence. However, the concept of God is dependent on the moral law (haha, theists). What certifies the objective reality of freedom? Why, the “fact of reason”, of course! I’m still trying to figure out what that is…

  41. Jem–

    The preface to the Second Critique is a perplexing piece of work. Almost contradictory when it comes to the existence of the postulates, but note one key phrase there: by means of it get stability and objective reality, that is, their possibility is proved by this. Now think back to the “Conclusion” of the Prolegomena: all that’s been shown by the postulates is a possible existence, not an actual one, because it is impossible to determine them. But then there’s that whole language about “objectivity,” which seems to assert a real existence. He tries to clear this up later on, but it only gets murkier. And check out this nugget from The Critique of Judgment:

    [I]f I form a notion of a supersensible being as prime mover and thus employ the category of causality in consideration of the same mode of action in the world, namely, the movement of matter, I must not then conceive it to be at any place in space, or to be extended, nay am I even to conceive of it as existing in time at all or as coexistent with other beings… Beyond all doubt the great finality present in the world compels us to conceive that there is a supreme cause…and one whose causality has an intelligence behind it. But this in no way entitles us to ascribe such intelligence to that cause.

    Truly, he has a dizzying intellect. (5 points and a Passover Coke for whomever guesses the movie that’s from)

  42. Miss Priss, thank you for your answer. I also read your short article that you recommended. Is then the highest good, or the human goal, in your opinion, survival? Why survival? Why existence? You also state that: “a good X is that X which fulfills its nature.” What is our nature? How does matter, time and chance put together end up in reason, purpose, choices and moral imperatives? And this pursuit of life, is it an individual pursuit or one as a race together? And one final question, why should motivate us to do good? Bad karma if we don’t?
    jem & pmayo maybe this link will help: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-arguments-god/ If they are right, then Kant definetly tries to prove the existence of God.
    pmayo, I did a quick search, I would’ve never guessed that movie.

  43. BN,

    If you have questions for Miss Priss about her post on her site, ask them there.

    I think Kant would reject the phrase “prove the existence of God.”

  44. BN–

    One, I’m familiar with the Stanford Encyclopedia and have basic understanding of the salient texts from Kant himself that they cite there. Kant does reject any theoretical proof of the existence of God; he only goes so far as to say that since reason cannot get around the notion of a necessary being, it can be thought as possibly existing, but never asserted as actually existing. Just read the quote I posted from the Third Critique, it’s right there. Existential propositions are always, on Kant’s view, synthetic propositions; I cannot have any experience of the theological idea, ergo, I can never assert its real existence. Reason and the experience of the sublime and the moral law push me towards this conclusion, but I must refrain from asserting its existence as anything but possible, and while I cannot deny it, neither can I assert. Kant, from the First Critique:

    Thus whatever and however much our concept of an object may contain, we have to go out beyond it in order to provide it with existence. With objects of sense, this happens through…some perception of mine…but for objects of pure thinking, there is no means what ever for cognizing their existence, because it would have to be cognized entirely a priori, but our consciousness of all existence…belongs entirely and without exception to the unity of experience, and though an existence outside this field cannot be…impossible, it is a presupposition that we cannot justify through anything (A 601/B 629).

    Because the vocation of reason is to seek totality, we must presuppose a supreme being/intelligence, but it’s being is purely conceptual and therefore can never be asserted as actual or determinate.

    Kant, from the Prolegomena:

    The clearest arguments having been adduced, it would be absurd for us to hope that we can know more of an object than belongs to the possible experience of it or lay claim to the least knowledge of how anything not assumed to be an object of possible experience is determined according to the constitution it has in itself. For how could we determine anything in this way, since time, space,, and all concepts of the understanding, and still more all the concepts formed by empirical intuition (or perception) in the sensible world have and can have no other use than to make experience possible? And if this condition is omitted from the pure concepts of the understanding, they do not determine any object and have no meaning whatsoever (350-351).

    If it lies beyond time and space, beyond categorical understanding, beyond any concept formed by the unity of experience and understanding, it is indeterminate and cannot be said, then, to have any real existence. As you can see from these selections and the earlier one from the Third Critique, this exactly how Kant views the theological idea, that is, God.

  45. jcasey, sorry about that. I thought that those questions are relevant to our discussion. You also made the following claim: “Finally, I think I get the point that you’d vote for an atheist who shares your moral position. Fine. Lots of theists don’t share that perspective.” On what do you base your last statement?
    pmayo, good points. Since I already stated that my knowledge of Kant is very limited, I can’t argue against you. You seem to be right. My main objection was with the original statement: that Kant’s moral theory provides a good explanation for a moral law. Jem, and I agree, thinks that Kant is talking about an internal and universal moral law. Now, my objection to this is how can it be a law, if there is nothing binding to it? What happens if I don’t obey this law? I know Kant is not that interested in consequences. However, in my understanding, a law is something that should be obeyed, and if it is not, there will be repercussions. How do you think Kant will finish the following sentence:”You should not commit rape because:”, he’ll probably say something like: that’s using someone else as a means to an end or that “duty is the necessity to act out of reverence for the law”.

  46. BN. Short answer: nothing will happen to you. Besides, laws don’t necessarily entail “repercussions.” What happens if you violate the law of non-contradiction?

    In answer to your other questions, not all theists are bound to a Divine Command theory of value, as you suggest. But besides, you could hardly suggest that your view–whatever your view is–is the most complete representation of theism. Theists, as you probably ought to know at this point, can have any number of different moral theories and still be theists. Besides, being a theist does not entail having a moral theory. Being a theist like you does.

  47. BN–

    To reiterate Jem’s earlier recommendation, you will find the answer to your question about what binds us to the moral law in Kant’s Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals.

Comments are closed.