Western Values are Christian Values?

[Loki]

I often hear that Western civilisation is, at heart, a christian civilisation. Generally, this is meant to say that our morals and values are "christian" in origin and nature. I'd like to dispute that, at least for one key value.

It seems to me that one of the fundamental tenets (perhaps *the* fundamental tenet) is "all men are created equal". Under secular humanism, this expands into legal concepts like "innocent until proved guilty". The idea here is that humanity is an "opt out" system. In other words, everyone starts off as part of humanity, and is presumed to be on an equal footing with everyone else - this holds until such time as you demonstrate, though your actions, that this no longer should apply. All people are granted a default status of "equal/innocent", and you only lose this status when your actions prove you unworthy.

Christianity (especially, but not limited to, Catholicism) reverses this principle. It's an "opt in" system. Everyone starts off guilty, and you have to prove your worth through your thought/actions (ie, commitment to Jesus, etc).

At a moral level, christianity asserts we start 'bad', and have to work to reach 'good'. Secular humanism asserts we start 'good' and have the right to be considered 'good' until such time as we prove we're 'bad'.

Again, this just seems to be a straight out contradiction - if our legal system was built on christian lines, we'd assume people were guilty, and we'd ask them to prove themselves. The fact that western society has chosen a principle of "innocent until proven guilty" seems to be a rejection of the basic christian notions of how god has set up his judgement system. If god has adopted a "prove your worth" system, why has humanity adopted the alternative "assume your innocent, prove your failure" system?

[whitefork]

Some Western values are the same as Christian values.
Christian values predate Western values.
Therefore these Western values derive from Christian values.

Does one see the logical fallacy there?


If one does not, consider this:

Some Christian values are the same as Buddhist values.
Buddhist values predate Christian values.
therefore, etc.


Some features of Ptolmaic astronomy are present in comtemporary astronomy.
etc

Many similar arguments can be constructed.

[MRC_Hans]

While Christian ways of thinking have of course influenced our culture to a great extent, to say that it builds in Christian values is really a reversal of things. It is like those people who have claimed that athists must immoral since they lack religion to keep them in line.

Human morals and values have evolved together with our society. Different cultures have slightly different sets of values, often reflecting their practical situations. The values set of a culture is expressed through the laws, customs, and religion of that culture.

Christianity did not shape Western culture, it is the other way around. Does this matter? Yes, it does, because it makes a difference on where to look for authority. If Cristianity had shaped the culture, the authoritative reference would be the Bible. Instead, the reference is the culture, as expressed in the laws and customs within it, and the religion is applied in accordance with this.

This is also what happens in reality. Show me even the most dedicated Bible thumper who would willingly receive punishment for for a deed deemed punishable in the Bible, if the law of the country said he could go free. (it would not be difficult to find such an example)

Hans

[triadboy]

I read a wonderful essay that explained America was a conjoinment of two different ideals.

The Hermetic ideals were what our founding fathers were about. (separation of church and State, democracy, etc) These ideal came to us from Greece/France.

The Puritan ideals came to us from Calvinist Europeans settling in this country. Their ideal included (intolerance of others who are different, rigid outlook, etc)

You can actually see each of these thoughts in our society.

[EdipisReks]

personally, i believe that the secular western values that so many of us value are quite different from christian values. the Enlightenment, which is the foundation of so much of what we value culturally, had its foundation much more on the classics, and the classics as interpreted by Renaissance scholars, than it does on classical biblical teaching. however, since secular western values ar generalyl "good" values, and much of the population is christian, it is inevitable, in my opinion, that the christian population would like to claim those same secular values for their own. the fact that christianity and secular values are quite different seems to bother the christians no more than the more basic hypocricies of their religion do.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Loki
It seems to me that one of the fundamental tenets (perhaps *the* fundamental tenet) is "all men are created equal". Under secular humanism, this expands into legal concepts like "innocent until proved guilty". The idea here is that humanity is an "opt out" system. In other words, everyone starts off as part of humanity, and is presumed to be on an equal footing with everyone else - this holds until such time as you demonstrate, though your actions, that this no longer should apply. All people are granted a default status of "equal/innocent", and you only lose this status when your actions prove you unworthy.

Christianity (especially, but not limited to, Catholicism) reverses this principle. It's an "opt in" system. Everyone starts off guilty, and you have to prove your worth through your thought/actions (ie, commitment to Jesus, etc).

At a moral level, christianity asserts we start 'bad', and have to work to reach 'good'. Secular humanism asserts we start 'good' and have the right to be considered 'good' until such time as we prove we're 'bad'.

Again, this just seems to be a straight out contradiction - if our legal system was built on christian lines, we'd assume people were guilty, and we'd ask them to prove themselves. The fact that western society has chosen a principle of "innocent until proven guilty" seems to be a rejection of the basic christian notions of how god has set up his judgement system. If god has adopted a "prove your worth" system, why has humanity adopted the alternative "assume your innocent, prove your failure" system?
But our legal system is built, to a considerable extent, along Christian lines. This prompts the question of whether Christianity is really somehow antagonistic toward the presumption of innocence in an individual context. Both historically and theologically, I think the answer is no.

The U.S. Supreme Court, in Coffin v. United States, 156 U.S. 432 (1835), citing Greenleaf on Evidence, traced the legal notion of the presumption of innocence back to Deuteronomy (also noting that the idea was present in Christianized Roman law and possibly even Greek law).

The natural law theological arguments of Thomas Aquinas have also been viewed as fundamental to the further development of the "presumed innocent" doctrine. See Joseph C. Cascarelli, "Presumption of Innocence and Natural Law: Machiavelli and Aquinas", 41 American Journal of Jurisprudence 229 (1996).

If there is any body of law that is strictly "along Christian lines", it’s canon law – and canon law has always incorporated a strict presumption of innocence for the accused, even while the civil common law lagged further behind in developing safeguards for the rights of accused defendants.

I think the reason for this is that, in one sense, innocence and goodness in the Christian worldview are not really (or at least entirely) an "opt-in" affair. Aquinas, in his discussions of natural law on this point, focused more on the notion that Creation really was innocent ab initio, and Adam and Eve "opted out". The murky doctrine of Original Sin that ensued does not, in Christian thought, presume individuals to be guilty of this or that particular sin (i.e., a fallen, sinful nature is not equivalent to personal sin). You still have to "opt out" for those, and this, in my view, explains why legal systems arising from Christian cultures do not generally include a presumption of guilt.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
Christianity did not shape Western culture, it is the other way around.That's quite a claim. Have you come across many historians who agree?

[Chupacabras]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
... (also noting that the idea was present in Christianized Roman law and possibly even Greek law).

Quite so, it's the Onus probandi, or burden of proof. This item - Innocent until proven guilty - is incorporated in the declaration of Human Rights. I would contest that this is somewhat derived or tied extrinsically to secular humanism, as originally proposed at the start of this thread. I would rather guess that, being based totally in Logic, it is quite commonly misunderstood and/or misused.

As of values in the Bible, one cannot overlook the works of Thomas Paine to ponder the proposal of western, or any culture, based on the bible (for a short review on Paine, click to the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/p/paine.htm). Otherwise, check one of the many sites on Bilbe criticism for another perspective of its values.

[whitefork]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
That's quite a claim. Have you come across many historians who agree? I suspest that Hans means Western culture has softened and ameliorated the extremes of Deuteronomy and the rest of the Mosaic law. We don't stone people, we don't punish idolatry or Sabbath-breaking these days, we don't hang witches, and to argue that this softening is a consequence of the Judeo-Christian legal tradition doesn't make sense to me. Civilization civilized religion (some religions, anyway).

The features that you point to in Western law as originating from that religious tradition are the ones that remain after the others have been rejected as incompatible with our image of ourselves as modern, enlightened, civilized people.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Kullervo
I suspest that Hans means Western culture has softened and ameliorated the extremes of Deuteronomy and the rest of the Mosaic law. We don't stone people, we don't punish idolatry or Sabbath-breaking these days, we don't hang witches, and to argue that this softening is a consequence of the Judeo-Christian legal tradition doesn't make sense to me. Civilization civilized religion (some religions, anyway).

The features that you point to in Western law as originating from that religious tradition are the ones that remain after the others have been rejected as incompatible with our image of ourselves as modern, enlightened, civilized people.
Civilization has become more enlightened over time; so has Judeo-Christian tradition. A misconception I encounter with some frequency on this board has do with how this process typically occurs; namely, that "secular civilization" (whatever that means) has, over time, generally been in the position of softening the rough edges of unenlightened religious ideology. In fact, with respect to Christianity in the West, the process has historically worked at least as often (though certainly not exclusively) in the other direction.

I've discussed this at length in this old thread (which, coincidentally, I resuscitated earlier today):

http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=9763

And, in the more specific context of legal systems, in the latter part of this thread:

http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=17982

To return to your post, it's worth bearing in mind that Christianity itself softened many of the less appealing extremes of Mosaic law, which became obsolete not because the "culture" demanded it, but because they were not retained in the new dogma and the transition to Christianity. Thereafter, many successive enlightened reforms originated within the prevailing religious tradition and migrated beyond it, rather than being imposed from without. That is, many "unenlightened" old ideas no longer have currency in the West primarily because they were eventually rejected as being incompatible with Christianity, before they came to be viewed as incompatible with an enlightened humanist society.

[whitefork]

That other thread was good. I think the flow goes both ways, though I don't have any compelling reasons for thinking that most of the softening has originated from either side. It probably varies over time.

I'd like to see the same arguments applied to Islam, which arguably has not been softened up to the same degree as Christianity, though during the great flowering of Islamic culture it did, I'll grant. but since then, the pendulum seems to have swung back.

It would be a nice exercise to chart this somehow, looking at the history of law within the context of the great historical movements like the various Renaissances, the Reformation, the Industrial Revolution, and the like.

You have a lot of data on this. I should educate myself further.

Thanks for a provocative line of thought.

[Loki]

ceo_esq,

I had you in mind when I was framing this question! I was hoping to draw an answer from you, since you normally add something to the table that I may have overlooked.

But our legal system is built, to a considerable extent, along Christian lines.
...
If there is any body of law that is strictly "along Christian lines", it’s canon law – and canon law has always incorporated a strict presumption of innocence for the accused, even while the civil common law lagged further behind in developing safeguards for the rights of accused defendants.
I think my line of thought was prompted (initially) by Christian's (the JREF poster, not the faith) statements that legal laws *should be* an encoding of underlying morals. This made me consider what the most basic christian moral might be, and it seems that "Original Sin" comes into play here.

The murky doctrine of Original Sin that ensued does not, in Christian thought, presume individuals to be guilty of this or that particular sin (i.e., a fallen, sinful nature is not equivalent to personal sin).
I agree that a potential weak link in my theory is that I'm mixing "sinful nature" and "sinful act" - and perhaps this is a fatal flaw. It still seems to me that if the Catholic god was building the (human) universe using the principles we try to apply here on earth, then we'd all be heading for heaven by default, and we'd have to demonstrate our unsuitability for this (ie, "opt out"). This doesn't seem to be the case according to a large number of christian denominations - although, yes, we've discussed before just how many people are "in" by default under the Catholic teachings, and I agree that there's "wriggle room" in the catechism.

See Joseph C. Cascarelli, "Presumption of Innocence and Natural Law: Machiavelli and Aquinas", 41 American Journal of Jurisprudence 229 (1996).
I'll try and follow up on this - it sounds like it's right at the heart of what I was thinking about.

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

Chupacabras,

This item - Innocent until proven guilty - is incorporated in the declaration of Human Rights. I would contest that this is somewhat derived or tied extrinsically to secular humanism, as originally proposed at the start of this thread
Sloppy language on my behalf - I meant to say that Secular Humanism has embraced this concept and made it a central tenet - I didn't mean to imply that the concept cannot exist without Secular Humanism, or that it was first thought of by Secular Humanists. Sorry for the confusion.

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Kullervo
I suspest that Hans means Western culture has softened and ameliorated the extremes of Deuteronomy and the rest of the Mosaic law. We don't stone people, we don't punish idolatry or Sabbath-breaking these days, we don't hang witches, and to argue that this softening is a consequence of the Judeo-Christian legal tradition doesn't make sense to me. Civilization civilized religion (some religions, anyway).

The features that you point to in Western law as originating from that religious tradition are the ones that remain after the others have been rejected as incompatible with our image of ourselves as modern, enlightened, civilized people. Exactly.

Hans

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Loki
I'll try and follow up on this - it sounds like it's right at the heart of what I was thinking about.
For convenience, I'll excerpt a few relevant passages from the journal article here (omitting footnotes):Creation – in particular, creation "in time" – is crucial to the political and jurisprudential question of whether such a thing as Justice both exists and is possible in this World. Creation is crucial to this question precisely because Creation in time unlocks the secret about whether man's beginning are innocent (Aquinas) or whether man's beginnings are corrupt (Machiavelli). Genesis is the story about Creation in time and about man's perfect beginnings.
… .
In summary, Genesis teaches that Man came into this World, in time, which is to say that Man was created with a good or perfect beginning. Man's beginning is marked by plenty and peace (as opposed to scarcity and war). Thus, the origin of evil is a fall, an act of human disobedience to God's commandment. To perfect oneself – real progress, in other words – therefore means a return to the beginning when Man was good. As Professor Marvin Fox writes: "One purpose of the divine Law is to create the best possible social order so as to protect men from themselves and each other, to assure justice, and to prevent violence. . . . The aim is, in effect, to return mankind as closely as possible to the ideal state of the original Adam."
…
It is important to recall, at this juncture, that Machiavelli (and the tradition that follows after him) maintains the opposite view. The Modern Tradition says that the World has a bad beginning, or, at a minimum, that Man's beginning is neutral, that is, neither good nor bad. This is significant. If Man's beginnings are bad, then Man will lead or will be led towards a bad end since he is already corrupted in his very being.
…
Philosophically speaking, if Man has good or perfect beginnings, then we may draw the conclusion that Man's nature, in its original state, is essentially good. If Man's beginnings be imperfect, then Man's nature, in its original state, is either essentially bad or, at least, is not necessarily good; but this is the same thing as saying that Man's nature, in its original state, is open ended: There is nothing inherently good or inherently bad in whatever a man does either to himself or to others. In short, we may say this: If Man's beginnings are imperfect, then Man is not innocent in his original state. But, if Man's beginnings are perfect, then Man is innocent in his original state. This leads us back to our central theme. Why is it the fair thing, the right thing, the Just thing for any man or woman charged with a crime to be presumed innocent until proven guilty? The answer seems to rest in the way in which Western Civilization understands Man's beginnings. Western Civilization begins its thinking about Justice with the premise that Man's beginnings are perfect.
…
Therefore, if one subscribes to the proposition (as does St. Thomas Aquinas) that Man's beginnings are perfect and Good, then it is only right to presume a man accused of a crime possesses the same innocence that he possessed in his original state. To do anything less would be Unjust precisely because Justice (which asks the question, "What is Right? and What is Wrong?") is not possible if Man's original state is morally neutral, that is, indifferent to good and evil. To the contrary, if Man's beginnings are good, then Man is innocent in his natural state. There is, then, a necessary connection between original innocence and Justice. This is why, traditionally, Justice is associated with Law, which, in turn, is associated with Authority, which, in turn, ultimately finds its primary expression in equating the Good with the Ancestral. Western Civilization is grounded in this Great Tradition. And one of the central tenets of the Great Tradition is that in the beginning, Man was made good and that the purpose of Law is to return man to First Principles. Or in other words, the purpose of Law is to help bring Man back to, or at least approach, his original condition, which was a condition of Goodness.
…
Thus, in drawing this essay to a close, we point out that the presumption of innocence is a well-established rule of law in American Jurisprudence – a child born of a long history or genealogy in Western Civilization, which itself finds its roots in the Great Tradition, which is itself premised upon the principle that Man was created by God and was made Good in the beginning. Justice is founded upon this principle and finds its expression in American Jurisprudence, in the doctrine of the presumption of innocence and its progeny[.]Source: Joseph C. Cascarelli, "Presumption of Innocence and Natural Law: Machiavelli and Aquinas", 41 American Journal of Jurisprudence 229 (1996).

An interesting notion: Law strives toward an original (ontologically if not historically) virtuous condition – to replicate, as it were, a moral state in which the Fall had not occurred. Certainly, I can see how this notion would lend philosophical support to specific legal doctrines such as the presumption of innocence in criminal trials.

[kedo1981]

One point that is almost always missed or left out in these kind of discussions is that Christianity and it’s stated “values” self promotes it’s own perfection.

[thaiboxerken]

Freedom of religion and expression are not christian values. The 1st commandment is evidence of this.

[Christian]

Loki wrote:
think my line of thought was prompted (initially) by Christian's (the JREF poster, not the faith) statements that legal laws *should be* an encoding of underlying morals.

Just to clarify, from the athest's position, the only laws that should exist are the legal ones.

Two other clarification,

1) "equal under the law" does not mean "equal under the law".

2) "innocent until proven guilty" only applies to penal law.

[Jet Grind]

Originally posted by Christian
Loki wrote:
think my line of thought was prompted (initially) by Christian's (the JREF poster, not the faith) statements that legal laws *should be* an encoding of underlying morals.

Just to clarify, from the athest's position, the only laws that should exist are the legal ones.

Two other clarification,

1) "equal under the law" does not mean "equal under the law".

2) "innocent until proven guilty" only applies to penal law.

Come again?

[thaiboxerken]

Just to clarify, from the athest's position, the only laws that should exist are the legal ones.

I'm atheist, and that's not my position.


1) "equal under the law" does not mean "equal under the law".

This is a contradictory statement that doesn't apply.

2) "innocent until proven guilty" only applies to penal law.

I think that's the current system, and I don't agree with it.

[TexasBEAST]

The Christian scriptures ordered Christians to submit to the government at all costs, even during the height of Roman Imperial persecution. Fortunately for us, the Founders of America said, 'You can take your "submission" doctrine and shove it up your @$$! We're rebelling!' Clearly our nation was not founded on Christian values.

The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution laud the value of the rights to life and liberty. The Christian scriptures order Christians to just go along with whomever oppresses you, and not to fight back. "Turn the other cheek", "Go another mile", etc. And if you are killed, count it as a blessing. Don't resist; just embrace your enemy. Clearly our nation was not founded on Christian values.

The DoI mentions the pursuit of happiness. The Constitution uses the more familiar wording of "property". At either rate, the Founders were indicating their respect for the importance of earthly happiness and pursuits. They felt that people should be able to seek out some form of enjoyment and fulfillment in this earthly life. Not so with Iesous (Jesus). He taught that the end of this world was at hand, and so, Christians should turn their backs on all earthly pursuits and seek not pleasure in them. He ordered Christians to give away all their property and follow him. And the first church of JYerushalem (in the book of Acts) did just that, creating a sort of socialistic commune. Clearly our nation was not founded on Christian values.

Wisdom and philosophy are scorned in the NT scriptures. Christians are warned to stay away from any knowledge not taught by the Church. The philosophical movement of the Enlightenment, on the other hand, taught people to seek such knowledge out! Our nation was founded because people dared to go beyond the Bible. Thank goodness!

[Christian]

Jet Grind wrote:
Come again?

1. US Senators are not equal under the law, illegal aliens are not equal under the law, gay couples are not equal under the law, etc, etc, etc.

2. The burden is on you to prove you are solvent to get a grant, you must prove you have paid your taxes if audited, in a civil case, the burden is on a company to prove it was not negligent.


thaiboxerken wrote:
This is a contradictory statement that doesn't apply.

Can you please explain why?

I think that's the current system, and I don't agree with it.

It only makes sense in penal law, why would you not agree with it in the other areas? Do you think banks should not require people prove they worthy of credit?

I'm atheist, and that's not my position.

It should be. It's in your best interest.

[Chupacabras]

Originally posted by Christian

1. US Senators are not equal under the law, illegal aliens are not equal under the law, gay couples are not equal under the law, etc, etc, etc.

Hellooooooo... This is Mexico here, a western country... :cool:

I honestly think you are confusing the extent of terms here. Senators, illegal aliens, etcetera, are equal among themselves under the same Law. They are treated in a different form because of a circunstancial (sp?) and probably temporary status. Even the Law provides for this in advance. If anyone is treated "unfairly", then that could be out of the Law, and it's another matter.


2. The burden is on you to prove you are solvent to get a grant...

Because you ask for a grant that is in your interest and by applying you are stating necesarily that you are elligible (by most standards, mind you). So, you are making a positive statement in advance and therefore you are requested to provide evidence. Besides, if it is on the list of requirements, it's up to anyone to comply or not...


... you must prove you have paid your taxes if audited, in a civil case, the burden is on a company to prove it was not negligent.

In Mexico (western country), the Government kindly requests proof that you have paid. And in Mexico (with all our deficiencies), no, in a civil case the burden is on the one who proposes the positive premise, namely the accuser.



It should be. It's in your best interest.

Uh... You might be required to prove that! ;)

[Christian]

Chupacabras wrote:
Hellooooooo... This is Mexico here, a western country...

I honestly think you are confusing the extent of terms here. Senators, illegal aliens, etcetera, are equal among themselves under the same Law. They are treated in a different form because of a circunstancial (sp?) and probably temporary status. Even the Law provides for this in advance. If anyone is treated "unfairly", then that could be out of the Law, and it's another matter.

I don't think I'm confusing anything. "Equal under the law" does not mean "equal under the law". We are not equal under the law.

Fine, you want to take Mexico. Diplomats in Mexico have inmunity of many laws.

And this has nothing to do with fair or unfair. (that is totally subjective).

In most Western Countries, people under 18 can't vote, most people would not call that unfair.


Laws and status come hand in hand. They are applicable to status.

Because you ask for a grant that is in your interest and by applying you are stating necesarily that you are elligible (by most standards, mind you). So, you are making a positive statement in advance and therefore you are requested to provide evidence. Besides, if it is on the list of requirements, it's up to anyone to comply or not...

This is irrelevant to the point. The point is that "guilty until proven inocent" is a standard only applied to penal code.

I can say most people use the "guilty until proven innocent" approach in most areas in life. And this is most certainly try in most other areas of law.

In Mexico (western country), the Government kindly requests proof that you have paid. And in Mexico (with all our deficiencies), no, in a civil case the burden is on the one who proposes the positive premise, namely the accuser.

Ok, so you have the kind burden to show you are innocent of tax evasion.

No, e.g. a restaurant accused of food poisoning has to prove that it follows sanitation standards (such as HACCP). If it fails to show this, big trouble.

You are probably thinking of civil trials involving individuals. In most civil trials involving corporations, the burden of standard is on the the corporations. They must show they are innocent.

Uh... You might be required to prove that!

You cannot impose your morality on anyone but, you can impose legal codes on them. If you want to stop anyone from harming you, you must strive to make all pertinent norms legal or social. Otherwise, those norms are useless and ineffective.

[thaiboxerken]

This is a contradictory statement that doesn't apply.

Can you please explain why?

A is not A. That's what you've basically said. Contradictions are non-arguements and nonsense.


I think that's the current system, and I don't agree with it.

It only makes sense in penal law, why would you not agree with it in the other areas? Do you think banks should not require people prove they worthy of credit?

Civil law cases are often in the position that a person is guilty until proven innocent. If you are suspected of tax-evasion, for example, you have to prove to the IRS that you haven't. What banks do, I could care less, I thought we were talking about government, try to stay on target.


I'm atheist, and that's not my position.

It should be. It's in your best interest. [/B]

Why?

[Christian]

A is not A. That's what you've basically said. Contradictions are non-arguements and nonsense.

Don't be so quick to dismiss my comment. If your only field of reference is math, you are correct. But that is not the only reference there is.

In the world of hermeneutics A "can" not be A. Certainly "all are equal under the law" does not mean we are all equal under the law. I have provided examples.

Civil law cases are often in the position that a person is guilty until proven innocent.

You are correct.

If you are suspected of tax-evasion, for example, you have to prove to the IRS that you haven't.

You are also correct and this makes the system more efficient, imagine if were the other way around. With millions of declarations each year, it would be impossible for the IRS to control the system. Evasion would be rampant and the whole system would collapse.

What banks do, I could care less, I thought we were talking about government, try to stay on target.

Fine, I just wanted to point out that most systems work under the "guilty until proven innocent" premise, including the government.

Why?

As an atheist, the only way to ensure safety for yourself is to make sure rules become either legal or social. Moral rules are worthless because you cannot impose them on anyone and if someone else's moral norms directly affect you, you can only stop them from affecting you by countering them with legal or social norms.

Morality is, in practical terms, useless for atheists, they are unenforcible and cannot be corroborated effectively in terms of compliance.

[thaiboxerken]

In the world of hermeneutics A "can" not be A. Certainly "all are equal under the law" does not mean we are all equal under the law. I have provided examples.

Perhaps if you would've explained your statement instead of isolating it. I cannot judge context of a statement without the context provided.

If you are suspected of tax-evasion, for example, you have to prove to the IRS that you haven't.
Evasion would be rampant and the whole system would collapse.

I don't agree. The IRS should not go after people until they have evidence to support their notion that a person isn't paying taxes. We'd need to revamp the system, but that doesn't mean the system is fine as it is.


Fine, I just wanted to point out that most systems work under the "guilty until proven innocent" premise, including the government.

I like the notion of innocent until proven guilty when it comes to punishment type of circumstances.

As an atheist, the only way to ensure safety for yourself is to make sure rules become either legal or social.

Or, carry a bigger gun. Also, social is not something you mentioned earlier, I'd like to see a world where social "morals" become secular and adhered to. I am dreaming though.

Moral rules are worthless because you cannot impose them on anyone and if someone else's moral norms directly affect you, you can only stop them from affecting you by countering them with legal or social norms.

I'm not so sure. People break laws all of the time according to their own particular morals. Many people place morals above law and law above morals according to circumstance.

Morality is, in practical terms, useless for atheists, they are unenforcible and cannot be corroborated effectively in terms of compliance.

I think that morality can be secular and imposed upon the public by education.

[Christian]

thaiboxerken wrote:
Perhaps if you would've explained your statement instead of isolating it. I cannot judge context of a statement without the context provided.

You are right, I assumed the context was implied, I'm sorry.

I don't agree. The IRS should not go after people until they have evidence to support their notion that a person isn't paying taxes. We'd need to revamp the system, but that doesn't mean the system is fine as it is.

I'm tempted to respond but that would lead as to yet another tangent.

I like the notion of innocent until proven guilty when it comes to punishment type of circumstances.

Me too.

Or, carry a bigger gun. Also, social is not something you mentioned earlier, I'd like to see a world where social "morals" become secular and adhered to. I am dreaming though.

Well, remember under the common definition of atheist morality, morality is internal and self-regulating, thus, once norms become social, they cease to have the merit of moral.

I'm not so sure. People break laws all of the time according to their own particular morals. Many people place morals above law and law above morals according to circumstance.

This is an excellent point and it bring the opportunity to point out that breaking moral codes has no chance of eithe coercion or punishment. Not so with social or legal codes.

The only safe avenue for atheist is to strive for codes to be social and legal. And in the most important ones, for them to be legal.

I think that morality can be secular and imposed upon the public by education.


The problem is that once you impose them, they stop being moral (according to atheist).

[thaiboxerken]

Well, remember under the common definition of atheist morality, morality is internal and self-regulating, thus, once norms become social, they cease to have the merit of moral.

I've never heard of "atheist morality" actually, and if follows that I don't know what this common definition is. I don't agree that morality is internal and self-regulating, morality must also come from external sources such as society, and society also is a regulating factor. I don't know any person that lives in a vaccuum.

The only safe avenue for atheist is to strive for codes to be social and legal. And in the most important ones, for them to be legal.

What's the danger to an atheist that doesn't follow your advice?


The problem is that once you impose them, they stop being moral (according to atheist).

I'm atheist, and I don't hold that position.

These "atheist" positions of yours, are they just straw-men?

[Christian]

thaiboxerken wrote:
I've never heard of "atheist morality" actually, and if follows that I don't know what this common definition is.

Let me give the definition I've I think most atheist adhere to and you tell if it is consistent with what you believe morality to be (or being moral)

According to atheist, one is moral if one lives according one ones values. This is the highest form of morality because you are not good (or do the right thing) for fear of outside punishment or reward, but you are moral out of conviction, out of the consistency with what you as a human being value most.

I don't agree that morality is internal and self-regulating, morality must also come from external sources such as society, and society also is a regulating factor. I don't know any person that lives in a vaccuum.

I think we are having a semantics problem here. When I say morality is internal and self-regulating I don't mean the source is exclusively internal (the source of morality is irrelevant to my point). What I mean is that it is not imposed or coerced in any way. It is internal because it comes out of personal conviction, (just like "thoughts" are internal and self-regulating [you can appreciate that someone might argue that not a single thought of ours is original but taken from somewhere, and we still consider our thought to be ours])

The difference with social (or legal) norms is that they exist and are enforced regardless of our conviction or position about them. This place (the forum) is an excellent example. When I first came here, people would use curse words left and right, then, social norms were introduced, and these people "had" to comply. (regardless of their opinion or conviction about it)

What's the danger to an atheist that doesn't follow your advice?

Chaos and anarchy (or the rule of the strongest). Maybe this analogy can explain it.

I understand that the computer binary system uses diferent standards (ASCII, UNICODE, ISO). Suppose, it was left up to every programmer or computer related person to desing his or her on system of representation. What would happen if a standard did not exist?

So, if morality is a matter of personal choice, what is the outcome, and worse if a standard someone else is using affects you negatively, what do you do?


I'm atheist, and I don't hold that position.

These "atheist" positions of yours, are they just straw-men?

Ok, so when a Christian says he does not committ steal because it is against God's law, then, according to you, he is being moral.

The position that has always been put to me is that, because Christians do or not do things for fear of punishment or reward they are not being moral. That, in order for an act to be moral, it must be free of outside forces (looses its merit). To be moral, according to atheist, it must come from the internal conviction of what is right and free of coercion or like.


By the way, I like your signature...

[thaiboxerken]

According to atheist, one is moral if one lives according one ones values. This is the highest form of morality because you are not good (or do the right thing) for fear of outside punishment or reward, but you are moral out of conviction, out of the consistency with what you as a human being value most.

You should change this to "according to SOME atheists". I don't agree with this definition. Morality is merely a set of standards built by both the individual and society.


So, if morality is a matter of personal choice, what is the outcome, and worse if a standard someone else is using affects you negatively, what do you do?

Wait, are you argueing that "atheist" morality should be a matter of personal choice or not? I think it's a combination of law, societal "norms" and personal choices. To use law to enforce all morality takes away from freedom. To not have any law, gives too much freedom to those that would abuse.


Ok, so when a Christian says he does not committ steal because it is against God's law, then, according to you, he is being moral.

Yea, his motivations are stupid, but he's still not doing anything wrong.

The position that has always been put to me is that, because Christians do or not do things for fear of punishment or reward they are not being moral.

It's my understanding that christians do or don't because of fear and rewards of some afterlife.

That, in order for an act to be moral, it must be free of outside forces (looses its merit). To be moral, according to atheist, it must come from the internal conviction of what is right and free of coercion or like.

Internal convictions must come from many outside influences. Your strawman doesn't make any sense to me. I think that "morals" should come from reasoning on what the real consequences of actions are, not the fictional consequences that the religious are fond of spouting.


By the way, I like your signature...

Thanks, John Edward would be proud.

[Roadtoad]

I don't know that I would say America is a nation founded purely on Christian beliefs, nor would I say Western Civilization is necessarily a Christian Civilization.

Both are, obviously, founded on theistic beliefs, but beyond that, you're dealing with what the market will bear. Religion may have played a role in the nation's founding, but it's still pretty much what Machiavelli discussed in The Prince. The Constitution has been left in the dust, providing nothing more than a bare outline of what we wanted our nation to be, a statement of principle now left as a historic relic, fading into intellectual fantasy of what might have been.

As far as Western Civilization goes, it's been more about the subtlety of our cruelty, rather than about Christian values.

[Loki]

ceo_esq,

Thanks for the excerpt - I still haven't found the time to chase down the full article. From the little you've posted, it seems that the central argument can be paraphrased as :

1. God originally devised an "opt out" system.
2. Adam and Eve decided to "Opt out" the entire human race.
3. Every individual therefore now operates in the current "opt in" system.
4. The "presumption of innocence" is an attempt to model the Law on the original system, not the current one (ie, the god-inspired one, not the Adam and Eve version).

Sounds a little like a post-justification to me, but it seems to float even if it looks a little like a leaky boat.

[Loki]

Christian,

Just the mention of your name in a post is enough to draw you back to the JREF!!

Suppose, it was left up to every programmer or computer related person to desing his or her on system of representation. What would happen if a standard did not exist?
Seriously, whenever you discuss this I am left with 4 alternatives to explain what you write :

1. You don't understand Secular Humanist morality;
2. I don't understand Secular Humanist morality;
3. Neither of us understands it;
4. Both of us understand it, but one (or both) of us express ourselves so poorly that the other doesn't comprehend what is being said.

Now, it will come as no surprise to you to hear that I think the most likely explanation is #1. But I'm sure you'd disagree, and I'm not sure that I have the energy to try and disect this yet again!

Let me just say that IMO under Secular Humanism the source of morals is external, but the commitment to living a moral life is internal - does that explain things any better? Does that agree or disagree with your view?

To follow through with your computer encoding systems analogy, the design of encoding systems is a collective effort, but each individual must on their own (a) understand and embrace the need for a system; (b) select a system that they feel works best and (c) actively involve themselves in improving and correcting the system if they believe it has flaws.

So, if morality is a matter of personal choice...
How is your morality not a "personal choice"? I have little doubt I can find a christian who would be prepared to say that striking a child with a rod under any conditions is immoral, and that the source of this conviction is the bible (ie, god). You'd disagree, and consider that "reasonable/appropriate" use of the rod is moral, and that failure to use the rod at the "appropriate" times is actually immoral. You'd offer the bible as the source for this conviction. In what way then is your moral standing on this issue not a matter of "personal choice", based upon your use of your intellect to interpret the data (ie, scripture, society, life) placed in front of you?

With millions of declarations each year, it would be impossible for the IRS to control the system. Evasion would be rampant and the whole system would collapse.
...
Fine, I just wanted to point out that most systems work under the "guilty until proven innocent" premise, including the government.
I'm not sure if I'd agree that "most" systems of social interaction (legal, governmental, or otherwise) use the "guilty until proven innocent" principle, but let's not argue about the exact number here. My point here is simple - the basic, guiding principle is "innocent until proven guilty". As often happens, this principle can and is overridden by the needs of a given situation. Theory meets reality, and reality wins. The tax system reverses this principle, in the interests of building a workable system (we can discuss alternative tax systems). Your ability to find and list systems that do not follow "innocent until proven guilty" is, I believe, missing the point. It seems to me that the principle is accepted as the base/starting point, but can be overridden by practical concerns. It forms the framework in which systems are devised, and forces anyone who wishes to override the principle to provide adequate reasons and justifications for doing so. It also provides a framework for reviewing and revising existing systems, to see if the reality can be brought more into line with the theory.

[Christian]

Loki wrote:
Just the mention of your name in a post is enough to draw you back to the JREF!!

The power of narcism. :D

Seriously, whenever you discuss this I am left with 4 alternatives to explain what you write :

1. You don't understand Secular Humanist morality;
2. I don't understand Secular Humanist morality;
3. Neither of us understands it;
4. Both of us understand it, but one (or both) of us express ourselves so poorly that the other doesn't comprehend what is being said.

Now, it will come as no surprise to you to hear that I think the most likely explanation is #1. But I'm sure you'd disagree, and I'm not sure that I have the energy to try and disect this yet again!

I'l also go with #1 :wink:

Let me just say that IMO under Secular Humanism the source of morals is external, but the commitment to living a moral life is internal - does that explain things any better? Does that agree or disagree with your view?

Excellent. I think I'm able to understand why I had so much trouble last time around in explaining myself. But, now I think I think I can explain it better.

Fine, if you want to say the source is external I will agree. (this would be the same as you saying that the source of your thoughts is external). Now, this is where I want you to pay close attention, when you say your commitment to moral norms is internal, what does that mean (to me is like you're saying although the source of my thought is external, I choose which thoughts to have).

The volition (your choice to follow these norms) is internal and self-regulating. Is it not?

To follow through with your computer encoding systems analogy, the design of encoding systems is a collective effort, but each individual must on their own (a) understand and embrace the need for a system; (b) select a system that they feel works best and (c) actively involve themselves in improving and correcting the system if they believe it has flaws.

The point is that, if you want be in the game, you must embrace the system and if you want to improve the system, you must do it through the proper channels.

If you decide not to use any existing system, yours is useless.

How is your morality not a "personal choice"?

In your context, it is menu of infinite choices. In my context, it is decision of yes/no.

I have little doubt I can find a christian who would be prepared to say that striking a child with a rod under any conditions is immoral, and that the source of this conviction is the bible (ie, god). You'd disagree, and consider that "reasonable/appropriate" use of the rod is moral, and that failure to use the rod at the "appropriate" times is actually immoral. You'd offer the bible as the source for this conviction. In what way then is your moral standing on this issue not a matter of "personal choice", based upon your use of your intellect to interpret the data (ie, scripture, society, life) placed in front of you?

In my context, I can either discipline my child or not. If I don't, there are consequences.

In your context, there are no consequences.

It's good that you bring out examples. Let's use another one. I believe abortions are immoral (I also believe abortions should be legal in my country). So, it is my belief that, when a moral law is broken, God has set up a system of consequences. To me, there a consequences to having an abortion. Those consequences cannot be escaped. It is an objective system.

There is no reason for you to believe this. To you, past unconnected events, cannot have any effect on the future. In your view, a man can kill another, and if done flawlessly, he will get away with it. There wont be divine justice to come and get him. That passed event wont come to haunt him later on if he decides it should not bother him.

I'm not sure if I'd agree that "most" systems of social interaction (legal, governmental, or otherwise) use the "guilty until proven innocent" principle, but let's not argue about the exact number here.

Fine, but it is the case.

My point here is simple - the basic, guiding principle is "innocent until proven guilty".

You're watching to many movies. :D

This is only applicable to penal law. It is not the guiding principle in most interactions.

Let me ask you, is a high level of trust earned or is it given?

As often happens, this principle can and is overridden by the needs of a given situation.

What you are not really getting here is that below this principle you speak of is an even more fundamental principle that hold the one you speak of.

"Effort precedes reward". The innocent until proven guilty is actually the reverse of how things work (in the natural world and human interaction). The reason it is the exception is that the penal system is the only one that can punish you with the loss of physical freedom. So, in the quest for justice, the burden is shifted (reversed) so to theoretically minimize injustices.

And let me tell you something, in reality, the "real" burden is on the accused to prove he is innocent. This is why there is a 90 something conviction percentage rate of poor defendants and much less for defendants with money.

By far, the best legal strategy for a defendant is to prove he is innocent.

Theory meets reality, and reality wins. The tax system reverses this principle, in the interests of building a workable system (we can discuss alternative tax systems).

The way any system naturally flows is that one must prove to get to the other side. That is just the way it is.

Your ability to find and list systems that do not follow "innocent until proven guilty" is, I believe, missing the point.

Tell you what, show me a system that works like you say (other than the penal one)

It seems to me that the principle is accepted as the base/starting point, but can be overridden by practical concerns.

It seems to me that the principle is the reverse as the base/starting point. e.g. You are a terrible student until you can show me with consistent good grades that you are a good student.

It forms the framework in which systems are devised, and forces anyone who wishes to override the principle to provide adequate reasons and justifications for doing so. It also provides a framework for reviewing and revising existing systems, to see if the reality can be brought more into line with the theory.

So, then you should show me a system, any system that works under the framework of innocent until proven guilty (of course, other than the penal one)

[Loki]

Christian,

Plenty to reply to, and I'll try to get to the main points later today. Just two quick ones for you to think about....

The point is that, if you want be in the game, you must embrace the system and if you want to improve the system, you must do it through the proper channels.

If you decide not to use any existing system, yours is useless.
You know, perhaps we've just found the core of our misunderstanding - at least, I hope so, since I'd feel good about finally figuring out why we don't seem to communicate well on this issue. Let me rephrase your final sentence as I think it should be : "If you decide not to use any existing system, then you aren't a Secular Humanist". Does that help?

So, then you should show me a system, any system that works under the framework of innocent until proven guilty (of course, other than the penal one)
The Electoral system. You are presumed "innocent" (eligible to vote) until you do something to show otherwise.
The Australian welfare system. You are presumed "innocent" (eligible for benefits) until such time as you demonstrate otherwise.

[Loki]

Bump (For Christian?)

[Christian]

Loki wrote:
Bump (For Christian?)

I was waiting for a further reply.Posted by Loki:
Plenty to reply to, and I'll try to get to the main points later today. Just two quick ones for you to think about....