Richard Dawkins' speech to protest Pope

[huskerjack23]

secular morality is superior

Morality is as individual as a fingerprint. Secularists have no greater claim to morality than Hindus, Buddhists, Catholics, Muslims, etc. There are good and bad Theists and good and bad Atheists. You can't paint either group with a broad brush.

This is the thing that I'm trying to express. Morality IS individual. But one that includes dogma of a religion can only deviate from that religion to good and bad extremes. It hinders free thought and expression because the individual usually leads back to its doctrine for final decisions.

A person can be charitable and kind but still think that homosexuals are an abomination. They can be pro-gay people but think that slavery in the bible is justified because it was done in the name of the lord.

Secular morality is superior because we are all accountable to each other. God is not accountable at all.

That seems to be saying that secular morality is free from guidance, and it's not. All morality is based on the experiences we have through life. Those experiences are as individual as fingerprints. So you're secular and you're not hung up on god-based morality. Maybe you're hung up on political-based morality. Maybe you're hung up on the morality of your environs. Maybe you base your moral code on Husker football. Whatever it is, it has a basis in something. Nothing human is infallible. There have been no perfect humans, and all man-made constructs are inherently flawed, whether that's a bridge or a belief or a moral code. Secular morality is simply based on other things than Theist morality.

But here's the kicker - if you're an Atheist, then you know that Theist morality is based on man-made thoughts and ideals. The very word secular becomes more a discourse in semantics rather than a truly differentiating definition. At the end, we're all falling back on what some man said, whether that man wrote a chapter in the Bible/Quran/Pentateuch or whether that man is you.

I'm not saying that secular morality is superior because it does the most good. I'm saying it's superior because it allows for the most freedom for the individual to make final decisions.

SoCalHusker, wherever he is, would be screaming that to the rooftops.

 

[Husker_x]

Well that's the problem, isn't it? Normal men do not think that under certain preconditions they are infallible. The pope does. Normal men do not herd a flock of sheep a billion strong. The pope does. Normal men cannot convince AIDS-ravaged Africa to abandon condom use under the guise of morality. The pope can.
The pope is just some guy. Except a lot of people don't choose to see him that way, and he doesn't correct them.

That is kind of like saying Obama is just another guy. If Obama was on tv, people know exactly who he is. When someone says Obama, people know exactly who they are talking about. If I was on tv, nobody would know who the heck I was. I'm just a normal guy. Obama, the Pope, other world leaders, those are not just some guys, they are known people and what they say has an effect on people in some way.

Me listening to the Pope is like me listening to Obama. It effects me what he says. You listening to the Pope is like me listening to Kim Jung Il, it doesn't effect me bc I don't live in NK. You are not Catholic, so what the Pope says does not effect you or anybody else except a Catholic. And I don't care if he is the Pope and thinks he is infallible, he is human and nobody is perfect, not even Pope Benedict.

I think you underestimate the power both historically and presently of an organization and a figurehead that claims to be the vessel of a deity on earth. I might be shielded by Jefferson's Wall of Separation (at least directly) in the United States, but let's not kid ourselves. If Ratzinger can cause innocent people to think that condoms are worse than AIDS, or plant the idea that eternal fire is reserved for anyone not in his flock in the minds of children, I think it's almost willful ignorance to pretend he has no influence over anyone who doesn't already bend the knee.

 

[knapplc]

I'm not saying that secular morality is superior because it does the most good. I'm saying it's superior because it allows for the most freedom for the individual to make final decisions.

I'm saying that man is man is man, and no matter what he bases his morality on it will be as good or as bad as that man.

 

[huskerjack23]

I'm not saying that secular morality is superior because it does the most good. I'm saying it's superior because it allows for the most freedom for the individual to make final decisions.

I'm saying that man is man is man, and no matter what he bases his morality on it will be as good or as bad as that man.

Well what does that have to do with what I said? Are you trying to say that morality just is?

All I'm gonna say is that christian morality teaches to repress women, stone adulterers and disobedient children, infinite punishment of finite crimes, and sacrificial atonement of another person's crimes, none of these things are moral. This is written in their holy book. How can a person be moral, subscribe to this book as sacred, and not be a hypocrite?

 

[Ratt Mhule]

I'm not saying that secular morality is superior because it does the most good. I'm saying it's superior because it allows for the most freedom for the individual to make final decisions.

I'm saying that man is man is man, and no matter what he bases his morality on it will be as good or as bad as that man.

Well what does that have to do with what I said? Are you trying to say that morality just is?

All I'm gonna say is that christian morality teaches to repress women, stone adulterers and disobedient children, infinite punishment of finite crimes, and sacrificial atonement of another person's crimes, none of these things are moral. This is written in their holy book. How can a person be moral, subscribe to this book as sacred, and not be a hypocrite?

Times have changed my friend. I don't know any Christians who repress women or stone people.

 

[huskerjack23]

I'm not saying that secular morality is superior because it does the most good. I'm saying it's superior because it allows for the most freedom for the individual to make final decisions.

I'm saying that man is man is man, and no matter what he bases his morality on it will be as good or as bad as that man.

Well what does that have to do with what I said? Are you trying to say that morality just is?

All I'm gonna say is that christian morality teaches to repress women, stone adulterers and disobedient children, infinite punishment of finite crimes, and sacrificial atonement of another person's crimes, none of these things are moral. This is written in their holy book. How can a person be moral, subscribe to this book as sacred, and not be a hypocrite?

Times have changed my friend. I don't know any Christians who repress women or stone people.

But your bible says these things. Isn't it the inspired word of God?

 

[Ratt Mhule]

I'm not saying that secular morality is superior because it does the most good. I'm saying it's superior because it allows for the most freedom for the individual to make final decisions.

I'm saying that man is man is man, and no matter what he bases his morality on it will be as good or as bad as that man.

Well what does that have to do with what I said? Are you trying to say that morality just is?

All I'm gonna say is that christian morality teaches to repress women, stone adulterers and disobedient children, infinite punishment of finite crimes, and sacrificial atonement of another person's crimes, none of these things are moral. This is written in their holy book. How can a person be moral, subscribe to this book as sacred, and not be a hypocrite?

Times have changed my friend. I don't know any Christians who repress women or stone people.

But your bible says these things. Isn't it the inspired word of God?

It happened 2,000 years ago. Its 2011 and women have equal rights. And as far as stoning people, Jesus said let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

 

[knapplc]

Well what does that have to do with what I said? Are you trying to say that morality just is?

All I'm gonna say is that christian morality teaches to repress women, stone adulterers and disobedient children, infinite punishment of finite crimes, and sacrificial atonement of another person's crimes, none of these things are moral. This is written in their holy book. How can a person be moral, subscribe to this book as sacred, and not be a hypocrite?

I am most definitely saying morality "just is."

I also think you have a very shallow grasp of the Bible, and what it means to be Christian, if you think that's what Christians truly believe.

 

[bennychico11]

It happened 2,000 years ago. Its 2011 and women have equal rights.

I'd like to think the secular world is what gave it to them. Otherwise, how can you say it's okay for you to pick and choose what still is and isn't still valid out of the bible? Did god change his views on morality when man did?

 

[knapplc]

It happened 2,000 years ago. Its 2011 and women have equal rights.

I'd like to think the secular world is what gave it to them. Otherwise, how can you say it's okay for you to pick and choose what still is and isn't still valid out of the bible? Did god change his views on morality when man did?

The Bible has numerous examples of women in leadership positions, holding rights and otherwise being normal humans. I'd venture to say that most modern Christians are more guilty of ignoring those than perpetuating the myth that woman is subordinate to man.

Remember, in Christian theology, Jesus as the Son of God effectively ended all previous covenants, so all of those misogynistic rules and bizarre laws (including slavery) from the Old Testament that we like to bash the modern church with are red herrings. Jesus created a New Covenant between God and man, based on love, salvation and redemption for all man. It did not exclude Gentiles or women or... well, that about covers everyone.

So getting back to women's rights, you can't say that modern secularism gave it to them - or at least, that they didn't have it before. Priscilla was the leader of the church at Phillipi, and she was directly addressed by Paul in his letter. Paul also directly addressed two other women (names escape me) who were not getting along. Women were clearly very important and influential in the early church. Why did they lose those rights? Hard to say. Could have been the church specifically moving toward a patriarchal ruling model, could have been the fact that both Greek and Roman culture - which granted far greater rights to women than even Europe and America through the first half of the last century - ultimately collapsed, and were overrun by "barbarians" whose culture devalued women.

We wallowed in the mire of those beliefs/behaviors for over a millennia. Is that the church's fault? Maybe, maybe not. It's certainly OK to blame the church for not actively working to tear down those societal strictures. They're as guilty as anyone, and with the examples of female leaders in their own sacred text, maybe more guilty than others.

 

[bennychico11]

Remember, in Christian theology, Jesus as the Son of God effectively ended all previous covenants, so all of those misogynistic rules and bizarre laws (including slavery) from the Old Testament that we like to bash the modern church with are red herrings. Jesus created a New Covenant between God and man, based on love, salvation and redemption for all man. It did not exclude Gentiles or women or... well, that about covers everyone.

I was speaking more along the lines of slavery, stoning, etc. than just how women were treated.

But how do the Ten Commandments fit into that? They too are part of the old testament's list of laws/commandments.

Still, it could also be assumed by Matthew 5:17-20 that he did NOT intend to abolish the law:

"Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 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."

Even if Jesus was sent to abolish these laws. To end the idea of slavery, sacrificial forgiveness, stoning, treatment of women, etc....why would a god have ever established those set of laws in the first place? Laws that were preached as god's word for hundreds of years before Jesus. Especially if he knew he was just going to create a loop hole later for himself. Why is it okay for an infallible to change his mind and say "Okay, new rules!"

 

[Husker_x]

Remember, in Christian theology, Jesus as the Son of God effectively ended all previous covenants, so all of those misogynistic rules and bizarre laws (including slavery) from the Old Testament that we like to bash the modern church with are red herrings. Jesus created a New Covenant between God and man, based on love, salvation and redemption for all man. It did not exclude Gentiles or women or... well, that about covers everyone.

I was speaking more along the lines of slavery, stoning, etc. than just how women were treated.

But how do the Ten Commandments fit into that? They too are part of the old testament's list laws/commandments.

It can be assumed by Matthew 5:17-20 that he did not intend to abolish the law:

"Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 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."

Even if Jesus was sent to abolish these laws. To end the idea of slavery, sacrificial forgiveness, stoning, treatment of women, etc....why would a god have ever established those set of laws in the first place? Laws that were preached as god's word for hundreds of years before Jesus. Especially if he knew he was just going to create a loop hole later for himself. Why is it okay for an infallible to change his mind and say "Okay, new rules!"

Totally stole my thunder by posting that!

I don't like to be too reductionist about Christian theology. Frankly I don't think the bible even knows what it's trying to say on the subject of covenants or what laws are too be followed. Even if we assume for the sake of argument that the Christ event was supposed to overturn the Law, it's harder than it looks to demonstrate it. And far from being a red herring, the question of morality in an OT context is not solved by a covenantal view. A lot of good the new covenant did tribes of Israel, or the Canaanites for all those centuries. Plus you've just put a serious hitch in your ability to argue 'objective moral standards' (which I don't think knapplc is trying to do, but Christians often do, and his explanation doesn't help them). Add onto that the problems of predestination in the NT, there's enough problems with this moral view to go around.

 

[knapplc]

benny, those are great questions, and those are questions for which I have no answer. I'm just trying to present the position more clearly, not support it.

 

[Ratt Mhule]

benny, those are great questions, and those are questions for which I have no answer. I'm just trying to present the position more clearly, not support it.

Questions he may ask God himself if he finds out God actually does exist. Or if he is right and God doesn't exist, then it is a moot point.

 

[robsker]

Except the problem is I do not grant that Ratzinger holds any legitimate office or should have any authority over anyone in any capacity at any time, especially if backed by force or the threat of force, as was the case for popes from centuries past.

Well to Catholics he holds a very important position and we respect him as the man God has chose to lead his church here on Earth. Doesn't mean we agree with everything he says and does, but he is the face of our church and chosen by God. Nobody but Catholics have to listen to anything he says and certainly should not get bent out of shape about it. To Dawkins, he is just one normal man. No reason to care so much.

Well that's the problem, isn't it? Normal men do not think that under certain preconditions they are infallible. The pope does. Normal men do not herd a flock of sheep a billion strong. The pope does. Normal men cannot convince AIDS-ravaged Africa to abandon condom use under the guise of morality. The pope can.

The pope is just some guy. Except a lot of people don't choose to see him that way, and he doesn't correct them.

Well said.