I agree that there are problems in public schools, and I agree that often private schools are better (even/especially non-religious private schools), but there are many elements of your essay which are questionable or false. I think the most mistaken part of your essay has to do with religion.


----- -----

>>You wrote: “The first problem with public schools is that they do not provide moral education because they cannot constitutionally do so.”

It is NOT unconstitutional to provide moral education. I have 5 years of experience teaching in public schools. Many schools do provide moral education. I have seen it first hand. Sometimes they call it character development. I’ve been in schools where either individual teachers or the school as a whole promoted moral values such as honesty, love, respect for others, the value of knowledge, kindness, perseverance, self-control, the balancing of liberty and responsibility, etc. There is NO law that prevents teachers or schools from promoting such values.

It is the norm for people even if public schools to promote morality of one sort or another, whether or not it is official. Whether the kids become conscientious adults is another story, a different issue, even in religious schools. I know plenty of religious people who are much more immoral than the intellectual atheists I know. And, I know of no Christian who has a better code of ethics than my most considerate atheist friends.


----- -----

>>You wrote: “and religion is the foundation of morality.” [and] “To have any foundation for morality, one must necessarily believe in God, the eternal Standard of Goodness.”

This is NOT true.

Again, I repeat, I have many former students who attend Harvard, Yale, MIT, U.C. Berkeley, U.T. Austin, etc., and who are good, moral people yet are NOT religious, nor were they indoctrinated in religion by private schools with religious agendas.

Not only did morality exist long before Judaism, Christianity, and Islam even existed, but

it is a FACT that morality exists even in people and places which have rejected religion. If you are not aware of this, it is simply because you either haven’t yet met such people or been to such places, or else you are blindly denying their existence or worth. I myself am moral apart from being religious; I hope you do not choose to imagine that I and those like me throughout history do not exist and have not existed. Even many intellectual Christians believe know that morality is an important part of society regardless of religion.

It is true that most societies within recorded history have used religion-mythology as a framework for morality, but that does not make religion a prerequisite; nor does it validate religion. Even in religious societies, it is always humans who make the rules, even though they may claim that their ideas came from Gods, a God, or the only God.

Morality is a set of rules, customs, or laws set up by people to govern people’s behavior and interactions. Religion is not necessary for such customs or laws. All societies develop moral customs because they are useful and natural for creating an ordered society.

You admit that you are Christian. May I assume that you consider other religions false, even while knowing that they still provide a framework for morality in other cultures? It reminds me of Plato’s Republic, where he advocates the use of a “noble lie.”

[The Rulers must tell the citizens “the Noble Lie“ – that the categories of Rulers, Auxiliaries, Farmers, Craftsmen, etc. were not due to circumstances within the people's control, upbringing, or education, but because of God's intervention. According to the lie, God had put gold, silver, and iron into each person’s soul, and those metals determined where a person's station was in life was.] [Plato. The Republic. III.414c ff.]

A similar idea is alluded to in the following quotes:

• “All religions are equally sublime to the ignorant, useful to the politician, and ridiculous to the philosopher.” – Lucretius, On the Nature of Things.

• “Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful.” – Seneca

If you disbelieve other (non-Christian) religions, you must already admit that the moral framework of the majority of people on earth is based on lies. IF you study enough, you will also eventually learn that Christianity, if taken literally and not merely symbolically is based on lies as well –
http://www.geocities.com/investigatingchristianity/


IF a Muslim bases his morality on religion instead of reason/logic and love, then IF he ever sees the falsehood of his religion, he may think he should abandon morality too. This is not good or desirable. The same is true for Christians. When they are taught that morality comes from God, they mistakenly believe that without God, there could be no morality. That automatically makes all non-theists immoral, which is foolish and creates problems for society. It also means that some of them who eventually realize their religion is false may think they can act however they want … only to suffer for it and to realize eventually that the law of cause-and-effect applies to all things, that “no man is an island,” that for the atheist and the theist and the polytheist and the agnostic alike ALL actions have consequences, and that it is in all our best interest to carefully, rationally weigh our actions and consider what actions lead to good for both the individual and society.


That morality does NOT require religion is a fact. If you want another person’s perspective, check out http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutethics/p/GodlessEthics.htm

Also, if you should become interested in the scientific community, you would see that far more of the world’s best scientists are non-religious than are religious, yet they are moral people honestly concerned for the well-being of humanity.

You could also check out free videos of the “Beyond Belief” 2006 conference in California, at which scientists debated what the future might be like without religion:
http://thesciencenetwork.org/BeyondBelief/watch/

Book stores and libraries have numerous volumes on ethics and morality from non-religious viewpoints.

I notice also that I have written to you before when you were posting errant ideas about morality and “absolutes”, but you never responded satisfactorily or addressed my specific points:

http://www.xanga.com/WindOnReed2/608058689/moral-relativism.html


http://www.xanga.com/WindOnReed2/607776537/response--absolutes.html

Some people want to associate public schools and secular government with “godlessness.” Yet they fail to realize that even the intellectual deconstruction of Christianity taking place in the West since the enlightenment, the scientific revolution, and the rise of historical criticism is a result of the research of honest people who were themselves, for the most part, products of Christianity. It has been Christian believers, ministers, and theologians themselves, along with their children, who have slowly but steadily discovered the falsehoods underlying their own religion. Unfortunately, knowledge of their scholarship is still largely restricted to the well-educated, those willing and able to question their beliefs, and those psychologically healthy enough to read books other than apologetics, books which demonstrate the errors [factual, historical, scientific, philosophical, and moral] within Christianity.

I hope that you will honestly consider some other perspectives.

I, like you, think that moral education is often deficient. But unlike you, I do not think that an imaginary personal god is the answer. People need to base their morality on reason and love, not merely mythology-religion. Reason applies regardless of religion.

Regarding the non-religious elements of your essay:

Do you think that people (as a whole) were better educated in the Middle Ages, when Christianity governed Europe and most education was private, than they are in the USA in 2008?

Sure, there are problems, but overall, education of the masses is far superior now, thanks in great part to public schooling.

The rich have almost always been able to secure a good education for their children, regardless of whether or not they were religious. Small homogeneous groups have also been successful in education because of their solidarity and homogeneity and because they were the judges of their own systems. The lower classes, which could not have afforded education otherwise, have benefited from American public education, while the rich and those in small, homogeneous groups have not been harmed by the public education of others. The problems that exist generally among the lower classes are largely responsible for the problems in public schools, and those problems would still exist as problems if public schooling were abolished, unless, perhaps, wealthy people are willing to pay for the education AND care of the poor in private institutions.

----- ----- -----

>> You say, “In private schools, especially in universities, there is fierce competition to provide the best education possible. … However when school becomes nationalized, the competitive element is taken away.”

Do you know how many universities are public institutions, not private? Do you think there is a lack of competition in public universities? Competition is fierce in the academic world – whether among administrators, faculty, or graduate students, regardless of whether the college is private or public. And you must have no idea what the job market is like for professors. You should see what it’s like being in graduate school at U. T. Austin [where I am]. My department admitted only 10-11 people last year from applicants all over the country. In most years, only 5-6 are admitted.

I also taught Latin for four years in an academically recognized public school. I have seen my former students go to Harvard, Yale, Berkeley (public), MIT, Rice, as well as to other respectable, competitive private AND public universities. I know from first-hand experience that there are successful public schools.

I also know that competition is not absent from public schools. Many administrators, principals, and teachers work hard to make their school excellent, to help their students achieve, to win status as an academically recognized school, etc.

----- ----- -----

>>You wrote: “Thus it is evident why public schools are most always less academically sound than private schools and their students test lower than students of private schools.”

1. This is even true for non-religious private schools [showing again that lack of religion is NOT the reason for failure within public schools]. 2. In general, private schools are selective of their students to begin with. Not just anyone can enter. The students who enter are already better, on average, than those who enter public schools, on average. It should not be surprising, then, that those students also turn out better-educated. 3. Often, private schools have better resources. 4. You are ignoring the role of the parents/family and the home-life of the children. Both of these factors are better, on average, for students in private schools, and these factors owe little or nothing to the school itself.

The quality of any school, public or private, depends on many things: 1. the character and quality of individual teachers, administrators, students, AND parents, all together, 2. the community, 3. resources, 4. et alia.

----- ----- -----

>> You wrote: Ideally education should be used to teach students how to think for themselves, but often it is abused and changed into a process of indoctrination.”

I agree.

However, private schools are not immune to this criticism either. Private religious schools are much better when they act in a non-religious fashion and do NOT indoctrinate their students on religion and religiously-based morality. At least public schools are subject to the control of voters.

----- ----- -----

*** I owe my own education to public schools, in grade school and in college. There were and are problems in the public schools I have attended. While in many ways I might have been better served by a private school (especially a non-religious one), my parents could not have afforded it. “The state” did much more for me than my parents could have done by themselves, especially since neither of them finished college. Public schools gave me an opportunity. My parents supported me. I always made A's in high school and college, and I have always earned a 4.0 average. Despite its shortcomings, I am so thankful for the public education I received, and their is no major or degree which I have been unqualified to pursue, should I have chosen. If my class mates were not as successful, it was not the fault of public schools.

WindOnReed2--

Thank you for your comments. I'll address your critique of my idea of morality first. But before I do, I ask to do something for me. Put away your biases and try to see things for the first time. Be a pursuer of truth in this debate and not just an advocate of your position. We are both freethinkers even if you cannot consider me to be such.

Alright, let’s begin

[[I have 5 years of experience teaching in public schools. Many schools do provide moral education. I have seen it first hand. Sometimes they call it character development. I’ve been in schools where either individual teachers or the school as a whole promoted moral values such as honesty, love, respect for others, the value of knowledge, kindness, perseverance, self-control, the balancing of liberty and responsibility, etc. There is NO law that prevents teachers or schools from promoting such values.]]

You are absolutely right. There is no law that says teachers cannot instill moral values in their students. They can teach their students to not steal, to obey their parents, to not plagiarize, etc., but teachers can never give their students a reason for acting morally. To do so would be unconstitutional.

But let’s start from the beginning, where we might find common ground. If I remember correctly you do not believe in an absolute system of morality. To you, morality is a system developed by human society for the purposes of survival and order.

So we agree at least that an effective system of morality will result in an ordered society. But what is an ordered society? An ordered society is a group of people working together for the purposes of survival and personal pleasure. In an ordered society people do not harm each other or each other’s property.

Why don’t people in an ordered society harm each other or each other’s property? Because their system of morality tells them not to do so, right? If that is so, then morality could be defined as doing what you are supposed to do.

But why should humans not harm each other? Does atheism give an answer for that? Plato did. He invented a system in which Goodness, Truth and Beauty find their source and ideal in an ultimate absolute Standard. Christian philosophy is very similar to platonic philosophy. In Christian philosophy this Standard is God. You think of the Christian God all wrong. The biblical God is not like man. Rather God is an eternal Standard and Source of all things Good, True and Beautiful.

With this in mind, let us return to morality. You are an atheist. I have no doubt that atheists and people of all religions can lead moral lives, but I do not believe that atheists can have a foundation for acting morally. If there is no absolute Standard of morality, then who decides what is moral in an atheist world? The society, of course. Now this means that one society in one time will have a very different system of morality than another society in another time. For instance, our modern America considers the mass murder of Jews to be immoral and detrimental to a well-ordered society, but Nazi Germany considered the mass murder of Jews to be both moral and helpful for maintaining a well-ordered society. Were both of these systems of morality equally moral? If society determines morality then both were moral, since both were determined by their respective societies.

This means that in the atheist system, morality is entirely a decision of the society and whatever the society decides is moral is moral, even if it is something as atrocious as genocide.

That is why I cannot accept atheism—because according to it, morality is entirely relative to the society and there is no absolute right way to live. Consequently, man’s search for external meaning can never be met because purpose is entirely subjective.

The Christian system, however, provides mankind with an absolute (and in my view inerrant) system of morality. In this system genocide is immoral regardless of what the society decides. That is one of the many reason why I am a Christian and it is why I prefer Christian morality to atheist morality, which does not really exist in any permanent sense since each society decides differently what morality is.

(On a side note—why do you attack Christianity? You have apparently made it your duty to rid the world of this religion, but why? Christianity gives people purpose and furthermore, offers them an absolute system of morality. All things considered, Christianity furthers the cause of human survival, not hurts it. Even if it is wrong (which I do not believe), why destroy it?)

[[Also, if you should become interested in the scientific community, you would see that far more of the world’s best scientists are non-religious than are religious, yet they are moral people honestly concerned for the well-being of humanity.]]

Alright, this is a ridiculous claim unless you can provide proof for it. In my experience there are far more religious scientists than atheist scientists, so if you’re merely speaking from experience it’s no proof to me. I will have you remember that almost every one of the famous accomplished scientists from history (with a few exceptions) have not been atheists. To name a few, Democritus, Aristotle, Ptolemy, Copernicus, Galileo, Pascal, Bacon, Kepler, Descartes, Boyle, Mendel, Einstein and most notably, Newton. Who do you have on the atheist side that even comes close to the scientific accomplishments these men have made? Darwin…

So in closing, I ask that you view us Christians and Theists as we deserve to be viewed. We are really smart people who are earnestly pursuing truth, not merely ignorantly living in deception. Although there are many annoying and ignorant Christians out there, do not forget that you have such people in your own camp. Few things are more annoying than a young arrogant atheist who thinks he knows it all and proudly informs you of your deception with arguments you’ve heard countess times before.

So thank you. I look forward to your response.

Yes that is one of my favorite parts as well.

>> You wrote, “You are absolutely right. There is no law that says teachers cannot instill moral values in their students. They can teach their students to not steal, to obey their parents, to not plagiarize, etc., but teachers can never give their students a reason for acting morally. To do so would be unconstitutional.”

Not true. It is most often NOT unconstitutional to give students reasons for acting morally. Teachers can and should give students reasons for acting morally, and they often do so in one form or another. Some teachers are better motivators or are better at explaining the rationale for moral behavior. Some reasons may be better than others; some may be more effective; some are lies spoken with good intentions. It’s always best and most effective if parents, teachers, and the entire community help to provide reasons. Consider the following example:

ex. General reasons often given for not cheating on homework by merely copying:
1. Doing your homework yourself gives you important practice and knowledge. The more knowledge you gain, the easier it is to acquire it additionally. A knowledgeable person will be more likely to succeed in many circumstances, and will be more likely to be happy. OR If you don’t do the work yourself, you will not learn the material well, may miss out on important information, and may eventually become a less knowledgeable, less capable, likely less happy person. Which outcome do you prefer?

2. Doing your homework yourself will lead to better grades; better grades will lead to a happier you, happier parents, happier teachers, better preparation for college and/or jobs, good letters of recommendation from teachers. If you don’t do it yourself, your grades will not be as good, you will feel worse, and so will your parents and teachers. You will not be as well prepared for struggles or opportunities to come, and you will be less able to get good recommendations. Which outcome sounds better?

3. If you make a habit of doing well on homework and doing it yourself, your good habits will develop good character within you and will make you more successful and happier in the long-run, as you maintain those good habits. Bad actions continued lead to bad habits, to bad character, to less success, possibly to cross-over failures in other areas, to struggles and sadness. Which outcomes seem better?

4. Your good example will affect others positively. Your bad example will affect others negatively. You will have to live with these other people and with the effects you have on them. Which outcome do you prefer?

5. **Reward/Punishment: IF you cheat and I catch you, you will be punished. If you don’t cheat, you will be rewarded. Why? … because I know it’s best for you to do your own work, so I’m giving you incentive. Which outcome do you prefer?

N.B. All of the reasons above are legal, constitutional, and non-religious.
N.B. Actually, 1-4 can also be boiled down to reward/punishment; 5 is usually meant to be a bit more immediate and a bit more visible and threatening on the punishment side.

Now, the above rules are simplistically stated, but I think that in a broad sense they have a decent amount of truth to them, admitting that anomalies occur and that the reasoning could become much more complicated if analyzed in greater depth.

Not all people get the message or are persuaded by 1-4. Sometimes they face extra obstacles. Sometimes nobody explains 1-4 to them; sometimes they don’t listen; sometimes home-life doesn’t reinforce 1-4 in an obvious way. Whatever the reason for their failure to understand or be motivated, stronger reward/ punishment is built in to give additional incentive. Some people are not even persuaded by punishment, in which case the punishment tends to increase in one form or another until the problem is solved or the person is isolated from society.

Reward/ punishment is probably the oldest and most effective reason for acting morally. Most reasons for acting morally, in fact, boil down to some form of reward/ punishment, including religious reasons. Religions simply delay the greatest forms of reward/ punishment for an alleged afterlife.

While reasons 1-5 may not always be effective, it is also true that religious reasons for morality are very often ineffective. Many people are unconvinced by religion, often for very good reasons. Some realize early on that heaven, hell, and Jesus are just a more complex set of toys, switches, and Santa Claus. Some see hypocrisy. Some are put off by appeals to the need for faith or by a lack of evidence. Some people are convinced by religion, but they act immorally anyway. Others act immorally believing that they will repent later and everything will be fine.

----- ----- ----- -----

Now, it IS unconstitutional for a public school teacher to give a child a sectarian religious reason for acting morally; and it is good that this is unconstitutional. There are many religions, and none of the theistic ones can validate their claims or myths. Public schools must accommodate students from all kinds of backgrounds. Christian parents do not want a teacher telling their child that Allah will punish them, or that they will be reincarnated with greater suffering. And non-Christian parents do not want teachers threatening their children with hell or promising them a house near Jesus in heaven.

----- ----- ----- -----

General non-religious truths affecting morality: Actions have consequences. Leaders and/or members in every society ask [and/or should ask] themselves what kind of society they desire, and based upon their goals, they devise rules and establish customs to foster actions which will lead to desirable results, thereby establishing a moral system for their society. Some rules are explicit; some develop haphazardly; rules can change if people change, goals change, experience changes, wisdom increases, or experiments seem desirable. Change is not necessarily a bad thing.

>> You say, “But why should humans not harm each other? Does atheism give an answer for that?”

First, sometimes religion teaches people that they should harm other people. In the Old Testament, which is more mythology than history, Yahweh’s morality demands that practitioners of other religions actually be killed (Deuteronomy13:6-10; 17:2-4). Believers of various faiths seem to me no better than atheists at not harming other people; the history of Christian Europe is a good example.

Second, YES, atheists can and do answer the question, “Why should humans not harm each other?” It is not a big mystery. Actions lead to consequences. In my experience, most atheists realize the simple fact that they depend upon other people in one way or another for survival, love, and happiness; therefore, they try to act in such a way that will benefit both themselves and others. It only makes sense. Randomly harming people or harming people without legal/just cause or the need for defense only leads to trouble. Do you need me to list actual examples? There are many practical considerations: psychological wellbeing, reputation, effective reaching of one's goals, conscience, sympathy, avoidance of negative consequences, and promotion of the public wellbeing.

Love and hate are both biological impulses. Plenty of people learn from experience that love aids happiness, whereas hate often causes trouble unless it is controlled.

And what makes non-religious morality even better is that it relies on reason, cause-effect, experience, knowledge, as opposed to mere stories which religions offer not only without proof, but with reason to DISbelieve.

----- ----- ----- -----

>> You wrote, “But why should humans not harm each other? Does atheism give an answer for that? Plato did.”

Do you believe that society should be set up according to Plato’s Republic?

>> You wrote, “This means that in the atheist system, morality is entirely a decision of the society and whatever the society decides is moral is moral, even if it is something as atrocious as genocide.”

The same is true for theistic societies. Look at ancient Judea and the genocide attempted and sometimes accomplished against different tribes in Canaan. OR, Both Catholic and Protestant Christians in North and South America wiped out many tribes of Natives.

You can say that they were not true Christians, and I would agree in many ways, but they would disagree. After all, Jesus and God think it’s good to destroy non-believers in Revelation;, why shouldn’t Christians interpret that symbolically and make war on non-Christians (as they frequently have done)?

Genocide would be impossible in any society that adhered to the principles of secular humanism. Have you ever read the Humanist Manifesto, I or II? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanist_Manifesto)

----- ----- ----- -----

>> You write, “I cannot accept atheism—because according to it, morality is entirely relative to the society and there is no absolute right way to live. … The Christian system, however, provides mankind with an absolute (and in my view inerrant) system of morality. … it is why I prefer Christian morality to atheist morality, which does not really exist in any permanent sense since each society decides differently what morality is.”

Christian morality is relative too, de facto, being interpreted differently by individual Christians, different societies, and different eras. Do YOU have the same opinions on morality as the writers of the New Testament?

Examples of Christian morality debated today BY Christians:
1. Paul considered it immoral for a woman to pray with her head uncovered (1Cor 11:5), or for a man to pray with his head covered (1Cor 11:4). “For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head, and because of the angels.” (1Cor 11:7-10). According to Paul, even the angels care whether a woman covers her head. Did the angels simply stop caring one day? Do you agree with Paul and his moral absolutes? Paul says further, “But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God” (1Cor 11:16). Note also that Paul believes Jewish mythology about Adam and Eve.

2. 1Cor 11:14 – “Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?” - Do you agree with this morality?

3. 1 Corinthians 14: 34-35 – “Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.” - Do you agree with this?

4. 1Tim 2: 11-12 – “Let a woman learn in peace, fully submitted; but I do not permit a woman to teach a man or exercise authority over him; rather, she is to remain at peace.” Many modern Christians disagree with this element of ancient Christian morality.

5. 1Tim 2:9 – “Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments.” I bet the majority of the Christian women in the U.S. would disagree with traditional Christian morality on this issue, though some stick to tradition.

6. Romans 13:1-7 – “Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.” (also, Titus 3:1; 1Peter 2:13) Is that always true? Even if Democrats make the laws?!?!

7. For Paul (Romans 1) and Yahweh (Lev 20:13) homosexuality was an abomination, but many modern Christians question this.

8. According to Galatians, Paul, Peter, James, and other Christians could not even agree for certain whether Gentiles had to be circumcised, or whether it was moral for Jewish Christians to eat at the same table with uncircumcised believers. Paul allegedly condemned Peter for hypocrisy. (Acts tells a different, happier version.) According to Galatians, James and many Jerusalem Christians considered it immoral to remain uncircumcised. Most Christians today do not.

9. Slavery: Neither the biblical Jesus nor the earliest Christians said that slavery was immoral, yet so many modern Christians do think so. If the South had won the American civil war, more people would have persisted even longer in thinking slavery acceptable.

10. Divorce: Mark 10:11 Jesus answered, "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her.” The author of Matthew 19:9 wrote the dialogue differently (even though he was using Mark as his source) AND added that divorce was acceptable in cases of adultery. Many modern Christians believe that there are many acceptable reasons for divorce.

11. Lust: “I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.” Matthew 5:28-29. Most modern Christians do not think this is to be taken literally, even if they do take literally the parts they like! Also, some modern Christians don’t think it’s immoral to lust, as long as they do not act on it.

12. Swearing oaths: “But I tell you, Do not swear at all: either by heaven, for it is God's throne; or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, … [or] by your head. Simply let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No'; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.” (Mt 5:34-37). Yet modern Christians believe it is okay to swear in a law court or to be sworn into public office.

13. Praying in Public: “And when thou pray, do not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the assemblies and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But you, when you pray, enter into your closet” (Mt 6:5-6). Yet many modern Christians want prayer in schools, and they love to pray in public, at football games, on sidewalks at “See You at the Pole” events, etc.

14. Wives submitting to husbands as to masters: 1 Peter 3:1-6 “Likewise, you wives should be subordinate to your husbands so that, even if some disobey the word, they may be won over without a word by their wives' conduct when they observe your reverent and chaste behavior. … the holy women who hoped in God … were subordinate to their husbands; thus Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him "lord." You are her children when you do what is good.” Many modern Christian women think that at least some parts of this are too extreme. Many do not believe they are immoral when they don’t obey their husbands.

15. Many modern Christians think the biblical Jesus was exaggerating or not being “literal” when he said things like these:

a. "You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. (Mt 5:38-41).

b. "You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.” (Mt 5:43-44).

c. “If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell. (Mt 5:29-30).

d. “But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell.” (Mt 5:22).

e. “Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what you will eat, or what you will drink; nor yet for your body, what you will put on.” (Mt 6:25).

f. “Take no thought for tomorrow: for tomorrow will take thought for the things of itself.” (Mt 6:34).

g. “Do not judge, or you too will be judged.” (Mt 7:1).

h. “Ask and it will be given to you … For everyone who asks receives.” (Mt 7:7-8)

i. "Sell your possessions and give to the poor.” (Luke 12:33 – not the passage where he’s talking to only one young man. cf. Mk 10:21).

j. "Woe to you who are rich.” (Luke 6:24). “Truly I say to you, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. … It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.” (Mt 19:23-24).

k. "If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple." (Luke 14:26).

16. Should Christians keep the law of Moses? According to the Jewish prophets in the Old Testament, the law of Yahweh given to Moses was to last forever, and even Gentiles would one day acknowledge it: Isaiah 2:1-4; 8:20; 19:2; 42:1-9; 42:24-25; 51:4; 56:6-7; 60:1-22; 66:19-23; Jeremiah 33:17-18; Ezek. 37:24; Ezek. 40-48,; Micah 4:1-3. Matthew 5 (written by a Jewish Christian whose community likely followed the law) presents Jesus as possibly agreeing with the Old Testament prophets, saying, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." In fact, here Jesus says, "not the smallest letter" nor "the least stroke of a pen" will by any means disappear from the law "until heaven and earth disappear." In Mark and Matthew, Jesus often gives judgements that are even stricter than Mosaic law (Mt 5; Mk 10; Mt 19). “Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven” (Mt 5:19-20). The rest of the NT says the opposite about the law. Rom. 10:4: "Christ is the end of the law." Eph. 2:15: speaks of Christ " abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations." Heb. 10:1: "The law is only a shadow." Gal. 3:24-25: "The law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law." Col. 2:13-17: says that Jesus "cancelled the written code, with its regulations. . . . He took it away, nailing it to the cross." New Moon celebrations and Sabbath days were just "a shadow" [making Isaiah 66:19-23 impossible to fulfill]. IF Yahweh’s law’s were not good enough and needed to be updated or amended or to be superceded by Jesus, then Yahweh’s morality CHANGES. Such was the evolution of Christianity away from being a sect within Judaism and toward accommodating Greek and Roman beliefs.


IF Yahweh is the God of the old AND new testaments AND modern Christians, then it seems that his moral rules were not absolute and have changed over time:

1. Polygamy: In the Bible Yahweh never says anything against polygamy, and some of his most famous followers in mythology were polygamous (especially in the early mythology): Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon. While the New Testament does not forbid polygamy, 1 Tim 3:2 demands that overseers/bishops be “the husband of but one wife,” and most modern Christians consider polygamy immoral despite the fact that in the literature, Yahweh and Jesus never said so. Mormons have heavily debated this too.

2. Slavery: The ancient Jews and their biblical Yahweh acknowledged the morality of slavery (e.g. Exodus 20:17; 21:1-7). The Mosaic law supports it, even in the ten commandments, and the law of Moses was supposed to be eternal. It was even acceptable to sell one’s own daughter into slavery (Exodus 21).

3. Beating slaves: Exodus 21:20-21 – If a man beats a slave, it is acceptable as long as the slave gets up within 2 days and can continue his/her work. Why? Yahweh and Moses say that the slave is money/property.

4. Sabbath: Yahweh killed a man for collecting firewood on Saturday and was called "just" by worshipers (Num. 15:32-36). Today, Yahweh does not do such things or consider it immoral to collect wood on any day of the week, at least according to many Christians. Did Yahweh give his approval for Roman Christians to change observance from the Sabbath to Sunday, from the 7th day to the 1st day. In 321 CE, the Pagan sun-worshiping Emperor Constantine declared that Sunday was to be a day of rest throughout the Roman Empire. About 364 CE, the Church Council of Laodicea ordered that religious observances were to be conducted on Sunday, not Saturday. Sunday became the new “Sabbath.” By 2000 CE, a majority of modern Christians no longer worried about what they could or could not do on the “Sabbath.” Plenty of Christians consider Sabbath observance obsolete.

5. Yahweh sometimes ordered the killing of children (e.g. 1 Sam 15). Most modern Christians consider that immoral.

6. Yahweh punished the descendants of Ham following Noah's curse, which was due to a minor incident involving being seen naked and perhaps mocked while drunk. What did the descendants do wrong? Many modern Christians would criticize such an action if performed by anyone but Yahweh.

7. Yahweh ordered the death penalty

a. for disobedient children (Deut. 21:18-21),

b. people with other religions (Deut 13:6-10; 17:2-5),

c. anyone who curses his father or mother (Lev 20:9),

d. homosexuals (Lev 20:13),

e. blasphemers (Lev 24:16),

f. adulterers (Lev 20:10),

g. and others.

Many modern Christians would consider it immoral to kill another human for such reasons. Plenty consider the death penalty immoral, period.

8. Yahweh thought it was immoral for a man to have sex with a woman during her period; if it happened, both were to be exiled (Lev 20:18). Many modern Christians do not consider such sex immoral, even if they don’t all have such sex. It certainly isn’t moral to exile someone for it.

9. Yahweh considered it immoral to wear clothing woven of two different kinds of material, or to sow a field with two different kinds of crops (Lev 19:19).

10. Yahweh considered it immoral to eat rabbits or pigs (11:6-7). In the New Testament, he decided it was okay after all (Acts 10). This is another case where Gentile Christianity won out over Jewish Christianity.

11. Yahweh and ancient Jews (like many other cultures and their gods) considered women to be a men’s property and generally inferior.

a. If you study the Mosaic law, you will see that it primarily addresses men. Ex 20:17 lists a wife among a man’s possessions: “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor`s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor`s wife, nor his man-servant, nor his maid-servant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is thy neighbor`s.”

b. Also, if men were dissatisfied, they could divorce women (Deut. 24), but there was no provision for women divorcing men.

c. If a woman gave birth to a female child, she was ritually impure for twice as long than she would have been for a male child (Lev 12:2-5).

d. Many modern Christians do not believe that women actually belong to their husbands, or that female children are more impure.

12. Yahweh says he punishes the children and grandchildren of sinners for crimes they didn’t even commit. “I Yahweh your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, upon the third and upon the fourth generation” (Exodus 20:5; 34:7; etc.). In the minds of many modern Christians, God only punishes people for their own sins. Yahweh was immoral by most modern standards.

13. “But if any harm follow, then you must give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe” (Exodus 21: 23-25). The Jesus in the gospel of Matthew seemed to think his “father,” Yahweh, was a bit harsh in this, and that there was a better morality (Mt 5:38-41).

---

It should be obvious from the above examples that while Christians and other religious people may claim that their morals are absolute and unchanging, it is a lie. For, each individual Christian seems to create his/her own form of Christianity. And since no personal, super-human God ever actually speaks for himself in a way that is fair, straightforward, and open to all, religious morality is always human morality, invented by humans who merely claim divine authority.

----- ----- -----

I pose a theoretical question: "From where does the alleged God get his/her/its moral values?"

“If they originate with God, then God's morals are made up and hence arbitrary. In fact, ironically, once religiously based rules are brought into any dispute, especially if there is more than one religious view present, the more the religious arguments are used the less agreement there is. This is because many religiously and theologically based values do not relate to each other or the actual human condition or the science of the world. Such values are said to come from a "higher" source. And so, when these "higher" sources disagree with each other or with human nature, there is no way to adjudicate the dispute, because the point of reference is based upon a unique faith-commitment to something invisible, not to a common range of experience.” (Edwords http://www.holysmoke.org/sdhok/hum09.htm)

“It is theological values, then, and not human-oriented values, that are the most baseless. For, with theological values, an arbitrary leap of faith must be taken at some point. And once that arbitrary leap has been taken, all values so derived are as arbitrary as the leap of faith that made them possible.” (Edwords http://www.holysmoke.org/sdhok/hum09.htm )


-----

You say Christianity provides absolutes, but even Christians usually don’t follow biblical teachings thoroughly; plus, Christianity only provides absolutes in the minds of people who believe it without doubting (and even those are questionable to the rest of us). BUT that is true of ANY system, atheist or religious. I too can offer you absolutes, if you will only believe me and not doubt.

Wow. Great essay. I used to be vehemently against all government involvement in education, but two points came to mind.

1. Every country that beats us in education standards has government involvement.

2. What do we do with the poor and uneducated? It seems to me that that perverts your government right there.

About this theological debate. Just a few points and I'll just watch.

1. To call morality baseless because it is based on what God decides seems a little baseless itself.

a. It is no more baseless than what a human chooses for himself. In fact it is less so, because it seems to me that something that is merely natural cannot itself impose and choose what is right and wrong for the rest of nature. Something outside of nature must impose it.

b. Yes God chooses because He wants to. Because He's outside of humanity. Being the definer of morality is one of the aspects and perks of being God. I really don't see the point there.

2. Parts of God's law that 'violate morality'

a. If this is so, then what is the standard for morality?

b. If God is the Creator of Life, does it not follow that God can take life away and give it when He chooses? Why is it more 'immoral' for God to decree someone to die via the death penalty (in the sake of social/moral self defense) than it is for God to kill someone via natural means?

3. 'Christians don't follow Christian rules'

a. This is by far the most cliche of all objections. All alleged examples provided lack credibility on the basis that they are far more complex that "Aha! See?" and because every single example that can be stated was opposed by other Christians and religious people (Fr Boenhoffer, Fr de las Casas, William Lloyd Garrison, Gandhi and so on)

b. People are violent. That is the rule of humanity it seems. Everyone, at one time or another, feels the impulse to use violence. It is a curse of humanity. Because religious people make up the VAST majority of humanity and Christians make up 2.1 billion people, mathametically it makes sense that some of those who profess to  be religious and/or Christians would do wrong things at times. Self professed religious people doing violent things =/= Religion is violent.

c. While we're on that, the important thing to remember, especially in the case of Christianity, is that those people violated their principles, they didn't follow them. When an atheist does something violent there is no guiding principle of atheism that he or she violated.

~IM_R 

>> Irishmex_rebel writes "something that is merely natural cannot itself impose and choose what is right and wrong for the rest of nature. Something outside of nature must impose it."

One part of nature imposes itself on another part of nature all the time.

Whether you like it or not, morality is and has always been decided by humans. Many societies have tried to claim extra authority by saying their rules were given by god(s), but no such claims have ever been validated, and in some cases (like the Moses/Exodus story) historians have been able to lay bare the factual errors and anachronisms in the stories (ex. The Bible Unearthed, by Finkelstein and Silberman)

As for something outside of nature, you are merely imagining things and using empty words. You know nothing outside nature.

KJV, NIV, etc. but i modify things like changing Jehovah to Yahweh, or such, when I know a more accurate reading.

How do you know anything at all?

And that question was definitely not meant to be answered. Because I don't think it can be answered. I'm just talking to myself really. Response pending. Be patient.

A natural being can impose himself on another, but that's irrelevant and you're avoiding the question.

When another human being claims that this is right and wrong, he is merely one natural being trying to create morality, no one is under any kind of obligation to believe that is right and wrong. To rightly define morality necesitates something (or Something) outside of the natural world. Something greater than the natural world.

You can quote a book all you wish, but it hardly validates your claim. Frankly seeing that 95% of humanity has always believed in divine moral order imposed from without of nature, it seems to me like it's the natural conclusion. I'm curious to when you will respond to my other points. But no rush.

~IM_R

And btw you claim that I "know nothing" outside of nature, then what are emotions? What are thoughts? Do you believe in anything outside nature? If so, then do you believe in any kind of moral order? Also that begs the question that either nothing outside nature exists or we cannot possibly acess it, which jumps the gun.

~IM_R

For TheSocraticClub and IrishMex_Rebel:

There was an excellent article by Harvard psychology Professor Steven Pinker in the New York Times on January 13, 2008, entitled “The Moral Instinct.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/magazine/13Psychology-t.html?ei=5070&en=e37b65ffade49e0b&ex=1201064400&emc=eta1&pagewanted=print

The article summarizes current research on morality. I hope you will find or make time to read it. It is MOST relevant to your/our attempts to understand morality.

IF/WHEN you make time to read it, let me know what you think. I hope it is helpful.

I think NYT is accessible on-line by the link I provided if you create an account,

but just in case it isn't, I'll try to post it to my xanga.

Cheers,

For IrishMexican_Rebel:


I have posted a detailed reply to your specific points/questions on morality here on my xanga

You give four secular reasons for acting morally. You use terms like, reward and punishment, happiness and success. But tell me, who decides what is a reward? What is happiness really? How about success? On person might consider something a reward that another person considers a punishment.

Suppose one person might think that cheating on a test will bring him happiness while another person thinks that cheating on the test will bring unhappiness. Who is right? There are two possibilities:

1. If both of them are right then values are relative and there is still no foundation for morality. How can a teacher say that not cheating on a test will bring everyone more happiness than not cheating on a test? The teacher cannot because in your system happiness is relative to the individual. One person might get happiness from cheating while another will get happiness from following the rules. Thus, relative values cannot be a foundation for morality. The atheist system still fails.

2. If one is right, how do we know that? There has to be an absolute Standard to determine that. Hence, God.

---You write: “Sometimes religion teaches people that they should harm other people. In the Old Testament, which is more mythology than history, Yahweh’s morality demands that practitioners of other religions actually be killed (Deuteronomy13:6-10; 17:2-4). Believers of various faiths seem to me no better than atheists at not harming other people; the history of Christian Europe is a good example.”

Firstly, what is with the random assertion in the middle of your argument that the Old Testament is more mythology than history? Not only is it out of place, it’s arrogant. How do you know that my friend?

Secondly, people are wicked. Christians are people. Therefore Christians are going to be wicked just like everyone else. That doesn’t discount the religion, it just means that people aren’t perfect.

Thirdly, an objection to God’s morality is silly, especially by you. You don’t believe in absolute morality, so how can you reject Christianity because you think Yahweh is immoral? It isn’t consistent. (Also because Yahweh is the ideal of Goodness and cannot tolerate evil He is justified in destroying evil. Men are evil. Does the Creator do wrong when he destroys his creation? The painter does not do wrong when he destroys the painting he created; likewise Yahweh does no wrong when he destroys his creation.)

---You write: “Second, YES, atheists can and do answer the question, “Why should humans not harm each other?” It is not a big mystery. Actions lead to consequences. In my experience, most atheists realize the simple fact that they depend upon other people in one way or another for survival, love, and happiness; therefore, they try to act in such a way that will benefit both themselves and others. It only makes sense. Randomly harming people or harming people without legal/just cause or the need for defense only leads to trouble. Do you need me to list actual examples? There are many practical considerations: psychological wellbeing, reputation, effective reaching of one's goals, conscience, sympathy, avoidance of negative consequences, and promotion of the public wellbeing.”

Once more you use terms like survival, love and happiness. But why are these qualities desirable? Why should they be? Without an absolute Standard these questions are unanswerable. What is well-being? Perhaps one person considers death to be expedient towards his well-being. Another person considers murdering people to be expedient towards his well-being? Under your system they have to be right. If well-being happiness, love, etc. are relative, they are not a foundation for morality at all. What one person considers moral is still different from what another person considers moral. How can you condemn a murderer for his action if it contributed to his happiness? His morality is just as true as another persons. How can you say the Nazi society was wrong in its actions? You can’t. Don’t you see a problem with that?

---you write: “And what makes non-religious morality even better is that it relies on reason, cause-effect, experience, knowledge, as opposed to mere stories which religions offer not only without proof, but with reason to DISbelieve.”

Hard atheism claims to be rational, but it isn’t really. Atheists have no reason NOT to believe in God. There are arguments in favor of God’s existence, but there are none in favor of His nonexistence. (There are only arguments against the arguments for God’s existence…which aren’t the same thing.) Theism has arguments in favor of it…atheism doesn’t.

Also, what is rationality really? Who decides what is rational? Nature? Or is reason relative? Because once more (I know this must be getting annoying), only an absolute Standard can determine what is rational.

---You write: "Do you believe that society should be set up according to Plato’s Republic?"

Of course not, but I do agree with Plato’s position on absolutes.

And I’ll respond to all your attacks on Christianity in a bit. They’re a bit off topic, since we can’t even agree on the existence of absolute values and Christianity is a long way from there.

"Atheists have no reason NOT to believe in God."

How's this - We look at the world and see nothing that requires or indicates a supernatural interference or presence, so we don't believe in one.  Crazy, huh?  We study religious practices, myths, and rituals of previous societies and cultures and smile at their credulity all the while seeing their vestiges persisting to this day.  After all, how different really is dancing to bring rain and praying for rain?

"There are arguments in favor of God’s existence..."

And all of them are surprisingly poor, weak, and empty, relying on what basically amounts to verbal slight of hand and the gullibility of and lack of scrutiny by the listener.

"..but there are none in favor of His nonexistence."

Look, you can't pull an imaginary entity out of your ass and say, "Can you show that it doesn't exist?  No?  Then it exists!"  Well, you could, but who would find that convincing?  Oh, right.

I'm not making that argument. However to disbelieve in God is intellectual arrogance since you cannot know that God does not exist. A true freethinker would admit that he does not know and not claim that they have knowledge of God's nonexistence.

>> You just wrote, "However to disbelieve in God is intellectual arrogance since you cannot know that God does not exist. A true freethinker would admit that he does not know and not claim that they have knowledge of God's nonexistence."

Not necessarily true, SocraticClub. It depends on how "God" is defined.

IF one knows that the Bible tells false stories about God, then one knows that the God described in the Bible as a whole does not exist.

IF God is defined as omni-present, yet Christians say one can be separated from God, we know that both of those cannot be true: No omni-present god exists from whom sinners or evil can be separate, if sinners and evil also exist.

Also, do you live up to your own words here?

Do you disbelieve in Allah? or are you agnostic about Allah?

Do you disbelieve in Zeus? Or do you admit that you have no knowledge of Zeus's non-existence?

Are you an atheist regarding Roman gods, or an agnostic?

Are a "true freethinker," admitting that maybe God is meta-personal and the same as the universe/nature?

I don't claim to be a freethinker. What is freedom? A lack of boundries? Because if that is so then no one's mind will ever be free and no one will ever be a freethinker?

I do disbelieve in Allah and Zeus, but I am not talking about a religious concept of God here. I'm talking about a philosophical concept of God-the Sum of All Being. There is no reason to disbelieve in the philosophical concept of God. There are good reasons to reject religious gods, but the philosophical idea of God ought not to be rejected since it cannot be disproven, while it can be supported with arguments.

My response to your previous comments is posted on my xanga.

---

What? You are not talking about the religious concept of God?? Then why did you mention Yahweh in your last response and defend that as God?

Given that "God" can mean so many different things, it is important that we, your readers, know what you mean.

If you mean "the sum of all being," then surely you aren't talking about the god of the whole Bible or of orthodox Christianity, since "the sum of all being" includes "all being," including evil, unless you are denying the existence/being of evil.

And you should not be trying to use "the sum of all being" as the "standard of Goodness," since the sum of all being includes evil - unless you intend to say that everything is good or that there is no evil.

I define the sum of all being is the universe/nature/This.

Well I believe God does control and in a sense encompass evil. Because He is eternal it doesn't matter. Evil is a tool to bring about the greatest good.

>> You wrote, "Well I believe God does control and in a sense encompass evil. Because He is eternal it doesn't matter. Evil is a tool to bring about the greatest good." Posted 1/19/2008 2:44 AM

I say WOW, sweet. OK, as long as you also acknowledge that any "hell" that ever exists must also be a part of this omni-present God, and that every time someone does evil, he is "bringing about the greatest good."

But, what does this new admission on your part do for you basis for "absolute" morality?

-----

I have a new post for you, which I hope is more entertaining:
http://www.xanga.com/WindOnReed2/638560839/every-sperm-is-sacred.html


Also, my reply to your previous statements was posted earlier.