Newsweek Article on Atheism

Doug · Post by **Doug** » Mon Sep 11, 2006 12:25 am

Here is the current Newsweek article on atheism.

A New Take on Atheism: Armed with evolutionary psychology and inflamed by the 9/11 attacks, these authors--Richard Dawkins (left), Sam Harris (center) and Daniel C. Dennett--treat belief in God as a superstition the modern world can no longer afford

Barbara Fitzpatrick · Mon Sep 11, 2006 11:30 am

Unfortunately, fanatacism is rampant - even in supposed moderates. The war between the Irish and English in Northern Ireland is based upon religion only in that until very recently (and that change is "fueling" the peace) by law the "minority" (as in not governmental religion) Catholics could not own certain types nor more than certain amounts of property, Catholics' real property was inherited equally by all children, while Protestant's real property was inherited by the eldest (keeping Protestant money-generating estates intact, while destroying Catholic estates), Catholic religious services were restricted or proscribed, Catholics could not work in certain, high-wage, industries or professions - and many other economic restrictions designed solely to keep the "minority" in poverty. The "majority" - even those in lower income positions - didn't want to see any of this change - for the same reason lower- and middle-class Americans want "stringent" immigration laws - they thought change would endanger their jobs.

Most of the underlying problem in Israel/Palastine are the same. Whoever is in power restricts the ECONOMIC well-being, as well as the religious freedom, of the other. And that's why, whether you believe in god - any god(s) - or not, separation of church and state is essential in a free society. Atheists haven't been in power in America, but the ones in power in the USSR showed the same legal and economic persecution of anyone who's "not us" that the various religions and christian sects exhibit any time they get into power. I don't go as far as the various authors quoted in the Times article (can't afford religion), because the masses usually NEED an opiate, but any religion surely must kept out of power over others.

Hogeye · Post by **Hogeye** » Mon Sep 11, 2006 2:17 pm

Excellent article. My only quibble is on page three where it says, "Dawkins ... overlooks something any storefront Baptist preacher might have told him. ... Millions of Christians and Muslims believe that it was precisely God who turned them away from a life of immorality." Yet the author gives no evidence of him overlooking this common theistic belief. On the contrary, they quote Dawkins addressing that very belief:

"If there is no God, why be good?" he [Dawkins] asks rhetorically, and responds: "Do you really mean the only reason you try to be good is to gain God's approval and reward? That's not morality, that's just sucking up."

The belief that morality can only be based on supernatural authority is perhaps the theistic belief that irks me more than any other. To me, the opposite is the case: A genuine moral belief or moral sytem cannot be based on authority - by definition morality must be evaluated and verified by ones own mind. Blind acceptance of authority does not qualify as moral philosophy.

Barbara Fitzpatrick · Post by **Barbara Fitzpatrick** » Tue Sep 12, 2006 8:37 am

A friend of mine used to differentiate morals and ethics thusly: Morals are religious - assumed orders from god; ethics are standards deemed to be good for society and individuals in it by thinking people.

Hogeye · Post by **Hogeye** » Thu Sep 14, 2006 10:37 am

Another non-standard definition of morals/morality is seen among sociologists - that morals are general popular opinion of conduct. Most people use morals and ethics interchangably to mean knowledge of good and evil (usually conduct.) Some philosopher types use "ethics" to mean more-or-less meta-morality, i.e. the study of moral systems.