Social Statism

[Traitorfish]

Adams was a Federalist; that he was prone to regarding the majority of the population as a swinish multitude, unlikeable and untrustworthy, should come as a surprise to no-one. Not as bad as that slug Hamilton, granted, but still at heart an elitist.

Which is basically what it comes down to. The Federalists didn't hold to a Jeffersonian notion of self-governance as an intrinsic right, but to a more classical republicanism in which democracy is merely the most effective structure available. (Hamilton even wanted a monarchy!) This is necessarily a circumstantial question, the most important contributing factor being the makeup of the population, so political sovereignty can be expected to expand and contract as is percieved to be necessary. His statement really has to be understood in that light, as the expression of a quite particular ideological orientation, rather than as a generally applicable comment on the role of the state.

and finding meaning in things is comforting to most people.

So does whisky, but we don't expect the government to involve itself in the event of its perceived under-consumption.

(Edit: Actually, in Scotland we do precisely that, because it's one of our most valuable exports. But y'know what I mean. )

 

[Leonel]

Wasn't there that Treaty of Tripoli stating that the US is in no way a Christian nation? Treaties are usually something that's approved by the whole of congress.

 

[Whiskey_Lord]

What I said. It seems that American politicians have always dropped the name of god whenever it has suited their goals and interests.

 

[stormerne]

Meanwhile, whatever politicians suit themselves to say, 76% of modern adult Americans self-identify as Christian.
(Latest US government figures, 2008, sample size 54,461.)

 

[ParkCungHee]

This line of thinking implies that Americans were at one time, a moral and religious people.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

In short, was Adams right?

Yes, so that leaves two logical solutions: Theocracy or Communism. What's your pick?

 

[Traitorfish]

Yes, so that leaves two logical solutions: Theocracy or Communism.

How did you reach that conclusion?

 

[Terxpahseyton]

American constitution = Freedom! Requirements? Religion and its morality
Lack requirements? Reinstate them (Theocracy) or give up on it altogether (Communism).

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Since I don't see Adams reasoning, I'll refrain from displaying mine.

Adams is wrong. Have a nice day.

Edit: ah hell, why not. The mistake he's making is that the argument makes the assumption that all religious people agree on moral values, and anyone who has spent a day in here should realise that's just not the case.

And that's not even touching the fact that religions derive their morals from the society they live in at that time. That morality doesn't have to be the reigning morality, but it does need a group of people agreeing on a set of morals that spark religious moral texts.

edit 2: What if there's a religious group who interprets Jesus' "render to Ceasar" quote as religious backing to support statism?

 

[Lone Wolf]

America is a creation of Godless Masonic liberasts. We need a strong State and a perfect union of the Church and the State to achieve a truly Christian society that will defeat the American Godlesssness.

 

[classical_hero]

Why does a lack of religious belief equate to a lack of morals? That's pretty offensive

What makes a person moral?

 

[Lone Wolf]

What makes a person moral?

Subscribing to Russian National Values.

 

[Quackers]

What makes a person moral?

Nah just make it up as you go along.

 

[useless]

What makes a person moral?

What makes a religious person "moral"? Is it subscribing to an outdated, questionable set of beliefs?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

What makes a person moral?

You tell me.

 

[Cutlass]

What makes a person moral?

The choice to behave in a manner that doesn't bring harm to others, and may even help others. Nothing about that requires religion.

 

[Winston Hughes]

Religious belief is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for morality, but it can be an exceptionally powerful motivator for the development of moral attitudes and behaviours. There are countless examples of people for whom the awakening of a moral view of life is bound up in the discovery (or rediscovery) of some kind of religious faith, and its role in helping some such people move away from selfish and destructive patterns of behaviour should not be underestimated. It is certainly not the only thing that can perform that role, but for many people around the world it is still the most effective and/or the most readily available.

Indeed, I believe it is a common mistake amongst my fellow atheists to underestimate the function performed by religion in promoting morality. One reason for this is the atheists' own inheritance of moral values from culture. Many of these values have the appearance of being 'natural' or 'self-evident', and can be justified in retrospect by moral philosophy. But, taking a longer view, we can see that those values have been inculcated in human societies over hundreds and thousands of years, with religion playing a central role. It's quite reasonable to think that this process of moral socialisation can - and should - now be untethered from religious belief. But it's a grave error indeed to assume that we can simply cut the cord and still expect to see human values develop in a manner that coheres with our own moral beliefs.

Amongst the mess of his other ideas about the world, this was one question that Nietzsche framed quite perfectly: if God is dead, then what takes His place? Nietzsche's answer was that, in the absence of a universal source, the vacuum is filled by acts of moral creativity. Where he got it wrong, however, was in the notion that the primary agents of moral creativity would be transcendent individuals (the 'Ubermensch'), by whose 'will' the new moralities would be forged.

Instead, we find today that organisations such as political parties, corporations, unions and charities play a far greater part in the creative process than do individuals, performing many of the same functions as religion when it comes to engendering attitudes by both influence and example. Preeminent amongst these organisations, by virtue of its power over so many aspects of life, is the modern state. Under authoritarian and undemocratic systems, the myths and fictions that support regimes in power often take on the force of religious dogma. Under more liberal and democratic systems, the process of creation is more reflexive and consensual, but the development of common myths and fictions through the state's performance of its duties is still incredibly potent.

What all this means for atheists is that we have a choice. On the one hand, we can accept the notion that, in the long run, moral beliefs will be dictated solely by the logic of power, with the interests of organisations (including, most importantly, the interest in maintaining and expanding their own power) providing the main driving force. To this perspective, our own moral inclinations are all-but irrelevant, and there is little reason to think that the outcomes will tally with what we would like to see.

Alternatively, we can reject the idea that 'might makes right', and aim to preserve a view of morality that transcends the logic of power. In doing so, I believe that religion is the very first place we should look, since it offers so many examples of how a transcendent morality can be developed and preserved in the face of powerful, self-interested opposition. Likewise, by examining where religion has been corrupted and diverted from its transcendent aims, we might be able to guard against those same dangers ourselves.

tl;dr It's one thing to reject God and religion, but it's another thing altogether to think that they are merely delusions that we can dispose of without consequence.

stl;dr Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.

 

[Tarquelne]

And that's not even touching the fact that religions derive their morals from the society they live in at that time.

I think it's more accurate to say that religions provide the excuses and justifications people use for their socially-derived morals.

This isn't a knock against religion, btw. It's one against people.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

....

Very good post!

 

[Terxpahseyton]

@Winston Hughes
Besides that I am wondering where this comes from:

Alternatively, we can reject the idea that 'might makes right', and aim to preserve a view of morality that transcends the logic of power.

Because of course morality has to "transcend the logic of power". Who is even seriously arguing something different? Otherwise it is just self-righteousness in disguise. I don't get what this has to do with atheism and its relation to morality.
But anyway, as said, besides this:

What can we learn from religion with regards to how to develop and preserve morality?
That we need fictional tales proclaimed as the unquesitonabl truth to legitimaze morality? I hope not.
That people are only moral because they expect to be remunerated for it? By holy salvation, passing on to heaven or whatever. Again, I hope not. Or rather, I hope the satisfaction of being and acting moral suffices.
That we need to cherish this morality in ritualized collective meetings? Probably helps a lot in deed, enforcing the individual codex by collective reassurance. A new humanist, atheist religion perhaps which offers a frame for such? I think that might be necessary to preserve morality. But it would require a very smart concept I am not sure does exist. Because where would such an religion draw is legitimacy from? Why should people give a damn? My answer: What established religion offer, as well: Support, understanding and help in practical matters. I think if humanity managed to establish such an enlightened form of religion, it would really be something.

But I think the most basic demand of morality is not something we need to look at religion to spot. It is IMO spot-able enough - which is the faith in something that is bigger than oneself. An ideal, which is adhered without wanting an immediate return in this life. And interestingly, that does sound very religion-like. But it is an religion without all the "silly" baggage attached to it. The pure essence of what can make religion a force for good. Ideals taking priority over immediate tangible gains.
So conclusion, it is wrong to say that people have to be religious to be moral. But right, that they need to uphold one of the key ingredients of religion.