RoR: Forum

You should be very proud of writing a book like this, Joe. I downloaded it in Kindle format this morning and look forward to studying it in detail. Please consider submitting an article on the subject for magazines such as that of American Atheists as they always seek thought-provoking material. Perhaps more "mainstream" magazines like Reader's Digest will even consider it if for no other reason than to serve as a contrast against a religious viewpoint. As you once said, "There is no such thing as bad press."

Post 1

Monday, September 12, 2011 - 5:19pm

Sounds real good, Joe.

I'll check it out on Amazon.

Ed

Post 2

Monday, September 12, 2011 - 6:54pm

Joe, regarding this pre-emptive message to potentially religious readers of your book:

The goal here is to describe atheists and a secular morality. Any discussion of religious beliefs is only useful in pointing out widespread assumptions, and making comparisons to see how a secular morality is different than you might think at first. If one of these common assumptions does not fit your belief system, you can ignore it and recognize that the contrast is still useful.

A weaker version of this logical argument would be to charge interlocuters with having to say, if they have a unique religious view that was not perfectly represented, with having to say how their unique view would become relevant to your points of comparison and contrast. In this vein, it would not be enough to cross your arms and pout: "But my view of religion is different than that!"

One would still have the onus to explain how it would affect the outcome of the comparison that was being made in the first place.

Ed

Post 3

Monday, September 12, 2011 - 8:10pm

Joe,

Great idea! I'm looking forward to reading it. Chapter one was a great tease and shows that steady, thoughtful, clear and origional approach that you take to important issues.

As an atheist, I first ignored religion as irrelevant, then I became more militant about atheism as a way to combat mysticism and faith which are harmful when used in approaching important decisions in any important areas (and to satisfy my sense of disgust). But now I see that we have common grounds with many religious folk in some political areas (and oppose them in many others). The common ground is that humans have rights that pre-exist government, that people are capable of choosing - i.e, that we have free will, and that personal responsibility is a cornerstone of a good culture, and that there are objective universal values and eithical actions.

We find that we are caught between a secular left, where we cheer on their attacks on mystical, faith-based rights violations, yet are horrified by the left's attempts to control all areas outside of the bedroom in their elitist control freak approach to government. A pox on both houses where they oppose freedom.

Glenn Beck goes off the deep-end on religion, believes that faith and prayer are core requirements to acheiving political freedom which is of course absurd. Yet I agree with him when he says that we will at some point, no matter who we elect, have to suffer an economic collapse of considerable magnitude - one so great that it is not what is happening in Washington that will save us in the long term. That it will be what arises out of the character of the individuals. That is where I agree with him. That we need to have solid values and solid ethics. Christianity will never be able to provide this beyond a bare minimum which isn't intellectually supported. We have many, many individuals who will stand for freedom, individuality, honesty, productivity, etc., but they don't understand why those are values and would not be able to support them in debate.

Morality has to be pulled out into the open and let the atheists and theists examine a rational code of values, a rational code of ethics, see the reasoning, and then reintegrate their own belief systems to what ever degree they are open to a rational morality.

Science has clearly advanced so far beyond any religion's explanations of the world, and as it loses credibility every year, and we see the entire concept of morality and ethics disappearing, sinking, chained to psuedo-scientific morass of moral relativism and the corpse of modern philosophy.

There are lots of people who will be slow to let go of some elements of religion, perhaps for psychological reasons, but will welcome rational approaches to morality.

So, like I said, "Great Idea!" I can't think of a more fundamental need for human beings at this stage of our history.

Post 4

Monday, September 12, 2011 - 9:39pm

Congrats Joe. I'm looking forward to reading it.

Post 5

Tuesday, September 13, 2011 - 2:05am

Thanks for the replies everyone.

Luke, I'll look into American Atheists. I have a few ideas, although they may end up being unpopular amongst many atheists. One point I make in the book is that we shouldn't expect atheists and religious people to come to the same moral conclusions, considering their views of reality are so fundamentally different. And yet a common atheist approach to this subject is a kind of "me too" approach where they show they uphold the same basic moral system, minus a few specific defects like stances on abortion and homosexuality. They might even claim to be more moral.

Ed, the subject of that preemptive message is a tough one. Religious people have made a study out of avoiding saying anything concrete and complaining that you aren't representing their own unique views. I think I mentioned at one point seeing an argument that you shouldn't have to believe in Jesus to call yourself a Christian. With that level of "flexibility", nothing sticks. The "new atheists" are criticized for attacking straw-men because someone, somewhere, calls themselves religious without believing any particular thing. So my book doesn't try to tackle religious morality by criticizing it directly. Instead, the book tries to provide an alternative. Contrasts can be made, but they only illustrate important points. I agree that they should have to explain why their unique views have any relevance. But that kind of defense is habitual, so I figured I'd at least address it.

Steve, thank you. I'm glad you like the idea. In the book, I spend a few chapters talking about interactions with other people. One chapter is on why people are a value in our lives. The next is on justice. The next is on collectivism. And then there's one on politics. So there's some significant contrast with "the secular left".

Jody, thanks! I hope you, and everyone else who buys a copy, finds it valuable. I think I added a lot of interesting ideas into the book. Hopefully others find them as interesting a I do.

It would be great if people could write reviews on Amazon when they've finished the book. It'd give others a better idea of what's in the book, and whether people like it. Also, if you can spread the word about this book to anyone you think might be interested, including other forums you might frequent.

(Edited by Joseph Rowlands on 9/13, 2:07am)

Post 6

Tuesday, September 13, 2011 - 4:17am

I posted a link to your book site on my Facebook Wall yesterday. Prepare for the haters. Here are what two religious Facebook Friends had to say about the topic of the book:

I trust that your author friend didn't quit his day job to write this BS. I'm just sayin' ...

Luke, I found something regarding this very thing...(Romans 2:12-16) 12 For instance, all those who sinned without law will also perish without law; but all those who sinned under law will be judged by law. 13 For the hearers of law are not the ones righteous before God, but the doers of law will be declared righteous. 14 For whenever people of the nations that do not have law do by nature the things of the law, these people, although not having law, are a law to themselves. 15 They are the very ones who demonstrate the matter of the law to be written in their hearts, while their conscience is bearing witness with them and, between their own thoughts, they are being accused or even excused. 16 This will be in the day when God through Christ Jesus judges the secret things of mankind, according to the good news I declare.

I will not bother to argue with these people because I dislike "public master debating" sessions on my Wall, but I wanted to give you a taste of what to expect from religious critics.

Post 7

Tuesday, September 13, 2011 - 5:50am

Joe, congratulations on your achievement.

I am curious about two things.
1. Using Amazon's "Look Inside" feature, I saw that "Ayn Rand" and "Rand" appear only once, in the Acknowledgements.
2. Is there no index?

Post 8

Tuesday, September 13, 2011 - 11:11am

My copy is on the way. That's my endorsement.

Sam

Post 9

Tuesday, September 13, 2011 - 12:48pm

Luke, I wouldn't mind if they bought a copy!

Merlin, thanks. Sorry, there is no index. I didn't think of it as the type of book to have an index, so didn't bother adding one.

And yes, I only reference Ayn Rand once, in the acknowledgment section. I don't think I even mention Objectivism. This isn't a book about Objectivism, and I took no effort to try to stay consistent with Objectivism. And further, I think there are many places where what I say is actually inconsistent with Objectivism. But as I said it isn't a presentation of Objectivism. It's a presentation of my own approach. It's really an argument for a secular morality. I decided early on that if I tried to make it about Objectivist morality, it'd change the entire focus of the book. I wanted to show the development of a moral system by asking questions and dealing with common beliefs or concerns about morality. I wanted to build it up and adding meat to the bones as I went. I needed to be able to give answers to those questions that I believe in, instead of trying to channel the ghost of Ayn Rand and try to figure out what she might have said on the topic. A book that tried to remain consistent with her stated words would end up focusing on trying to accurately reflect her philosophy and trying to defend her positions, instead of focusing on answering the question of whether atheists can be moral. One of the key strengths of this book, the value that I think I add, is the approach to building up a coherent answer. Trying to present someone else's views would have made that impossible.

There's another reason why I didn't go down that particular road. I mentioned there are places where my approach is not consistent with Objectivism. Some of these may be minor, but some are critical. My approach revolves around some of these. I discussed some of these with a friend offline. He wasn't convinced that the differences existed, because some of these views seemed compatible with Objectivism. We looked up specific quotes and it supported my view. The problem isn't that Rand or whoever would disagree with my points. It is that the philosophy, as presented, isn't careful about making distinctions that I think are critical. And because of that, the distinctions are technically incompatible with the philosophy as presented by Ayn Rand. So here's the problem. Presenting these distinctions, which are critical to my approach in this view, make it technically incompatible with Objectivism. Trying to remain faithful to Objectivism would make it impossible to write the book the way I did. One had to give.

Of course, there are arguments about open vs. closed Objectivism that could be made. But that's just one more distraction from the main topic. So in the end, I acknowledged a general intellectual debt, and moved on to present my own understanding of the topic.

I mentioned to someone as I was writing it that religious people would hate it for obvious reasons, atheists might hate it for being pro-freedom and challenging altruism, and Objectivists might hate it for both not being consistent with Objectivism and at the same time not presenting it as Objectivism! That doesn't leave a large audience!

Sam, thanks! I hope you enjoy it!

Post 10

Tuesday, September 13, 2011 - 3:54pm

Religious people have made a study out of avoiding saying anything concrete and complaining that you aren't representing their own unique views. I think I mentioned at one point seeing an argument that you shouldn't have to believe in Jesus to call yourself a Christian. With that level of "flexibility", nothing sticks. The "new atheists" are criticized for attacking straw-men because someone, somewhere, calls themselves religious without believing any particular thing.

that is the problem with religion. If you take it seriously you get things like the Crusades and 9/11. When you don't take it seriously you end up with this lovely blend of gray, washed-down messages which cannot be opposed, because the moment you disprove one point, it is cast aside as irrelevant to the faith.
(Edited by Michael Philip on 9/13, 3:58pm)

Post 11

Tuesday, September 13, 2011 - 8:28pm

It brings to mind the complement: can theists lack morality?

Evidence suggests so; theism and morality are orthogonal concepts.

There are few questions more important to our freedom than understanding 'What is and what isn't religion?'

I posit that the concepts God, religion, and certainly church are orthogonal concepts, and can readily see how morality is also orthogonal to all three of those concepts.

Atheists can clearly be moral actors, just as theists can clearly be amoral actors.

I have a different definition of religion, a meta-definition. My meta-definition is not necessarily about any God, even as there are many instances of religions that are about God or gods. The instances of religion do not define the meta-definition of 'religion.' The instances are individual consequences of individuals embarking on an examination of religion.

As I wrote in my very first post here ever, the meta-concept religion, to me, is any conscious examination of the questions, "Why am I here, and what am I supposed to be doing now as a result of that?"

For some, those answers involve God or even gods, and there is a great wrestling around the concept of what concepts in man's mind can or can't be a god. For example, the Universe, as it is, is apparently not Creator enough; created mankind's Rules for God can be very complex.

For others, when their examination includes an examination of what kind of society (their society, not 'the' "S"ociety/world)they want to live in, rational thought leads them to a morality that supports that. Whether that is a constructed morality or a discovered morality is a philosophical question, but arriving at it does not require introduction of a supernatural actor.

I look forward to reading your examination of this critical aspect of freedom; I'm convinced our understanding of what the meta-concept religion is and isn't is the most critical prerequisite for defining and defending our mutual freedom. There is a reason that the founders made the 1st Amendment the first Amendment, and the more I ponder the issue, the more I am convinced of their brilliance.

regards,
Fred

Post 12

Tuesday, September 13, 2011 - 9:30pm

Joe,

At some point, would you care to explain where you think your very fine book is inconsistent with Objectivism?

Post 13

Wednesday, September 14, 2011 - 3:52am

Michael, you're right that there are people who take it seriously and those who don't, and that the consequences matter. But I think there is variation even among individuals. Many people believe or claim to believe a more serious version of religion, but when confronted by atheists or any doubts, they retreat to a position of significantly less clarity and less detail. The way to defend their beliefs is by claiming that they are so lacking in substance, you can't possibly point out any problems with them. So they don't believe in a god with a beard sitting on a cloud or any such nonsense! Come on! They just think that the universe had to come from somewhere! They won't even suggest that it is a conscious entity or anything. They just want to call that initial cause "God". Is that so unreasonable? And then if you back down or walk away, they turn around and say "God hates homosexuals and pork products!".

They know how to retreat their position to something more defensible, but they have no intention of staying there. They'll come up with very vague, abstract, theological proofs that there might be something out there that we can't possibly understand, so they can dismiss atheists arguments. But as soon as the coast is clear, this abstract unknowable God becomes Jehovah and his son Jesus, who are the same person, and is also a communion wafer and a grilled cheese sandwich and was born unto a virgin and on and on and on. So it's not simply that people who have no real views are calling themselves Christians. It's that Christians muddle their views in order to avoid the harsh light of reason, but when they're back in the privacy of their own hom, it can transform back.

Bill, I might at some point. I might just let people figure it out. I actually mentioned some of it to you already. But those kinds of debates get old. Instead of focusing on what's true or right, it turns into a debate about what exactly was said and what's the proper way to interpret it. In general, if the proper way to interpret Objectivism is to assume it is completely rational and any statements that seem incorrect are just poorly worded, it isn't worth the bother. The most I could hope to do is show why my views are inconsistent with what they wrote, and not what they "really meant".

Post 14

Wednesday, September 14, 2011 - 6:17am

Joe:

For what it is worth, a topic like this on the WSJ has drawn almost 13,500 comments...

http://online.wsj.com/community/groups/religion-diversity-tolerance-governance/topics/do-we-need-religion-have#identifier

There is a lot of interest in the question you are raising.

Post 15

Wednesday, September 14, 2011 - 7:47am

For what it is worth, a topic like this on the WSJ has drawn almost 13,500 comments...

http://online.wsj.com/community/groups/religion-diversity-tolerance-governance/topics/do-we-need-religion-have#identifier

There is a lot of interest in the question you are raising.

Wow. I added a comment there (link) with a link to the book on Amazon.

(Edited by Merlin Jetton on 9/15, 5:17am)

Post 16

Wednesday, September 14, 2011 - 8:37pm

Fred, thanks for the link. Atheism is gaining in popularity, and it's noticeable that the question of morality is a common and significant concern. A lot of atheists have tried to address it, but I don't think they've done very well. They usually try to claim that socialists states are atheist, as if that were a sign of morality. They don't address the obvious question to me. How can atheists have the same basic moral assumptions as religious people when the religious people base their morality on an afterlife, an omniscient judging god who offers infinite punishment or reward, and the will of that god. Even if it made sense for atheists to accept the same moral conclusions, wouldn't religious people be more likely to put it into practice since they believe in infinite rewards or punishment? What's the cost for an atheist to cheat morality? If there's no god, why not just be bad? Especially if being bad benefits you?

Merlin, thanks for adding that link! The more we can let people know about this book, the more likely our own ideas will enter that debate. Tell everyone you know!

(Edited by Joseph Rowlands on 9/15, 12:16am)

Post 17

Wednesday, September 14, 2011 - 9:16pm

Early in the history of religion, long before there was any science, people's roles were to perform minimal tasks - things that were seen as fulfilling a role in the understood causality of the world. You had to kill a goat during the full moon, for example, because it was believed that it will increase the herd's fertility. There were so many gods that they weren't feared and instead just held certain other roles they would fulfill. Gods did their things, and the people did their things and the idea was that this combination of things kept the wheels turning.

It should be considered an important evolutionary feature of religion when they added the concept of an afterlife that was dependent upon the propriety of the actions before death. (Not a GOOD evolutionary thing.) And they reduced the gods from many to one. And that is a move that makes god powerful, hence feared. That was the point at which they attached a faith-based ethical system to the religion and separated the required religious acts from being practical (eg., good for one's goat herd, like getting them good pasture) to a floating abstraction of morality (Thou Shalt do this because it is a moral commandment). They needed the afterlife at that point, along with the threat of eternal damnation to make the commandments work.

The original religion was the prescience understanding of how man fit into the world and his society.... couched in ways that made it feel like he knew enough and that he could do those things that would keep himself safe.

The evolution was into a system that controlled him and transferred power to an authority. To get it done, they had to get people to buy in to the fear of an all-powerful being and an eternal damnation. With the transfer of authority the individual is reduced to a more child-like person - and becomes his father, and over time even the priestly authorities receive the title "Father".

The transition from the first model to the second is a shame, because the first could have evolved away from mystical god stories to a growing awareness of science until the only morality left was that which supported life on earth best - as determined by reason.

Post 18

Thursday, September 15, 2011 - 5:32am

Page 144 of The Quick and Easy Way to Effective Speaking by Dale Carnegie documents the method Saint Paul used on the Athenians. I cannot locate the Scripture and the author does not cite it. But evidently the Athenians had an altar in their temple of many gods for "The Unknown God" so Paul expropriated the prop for his own ends. This opened them to the idea of Christianity. The rest is history.

Post 19

Saturday, September 17, 2011 - 8:51am