I would include “not caring about the god question” as also a perfectly reasonable basis for rational thought (which is where I sit)

I used to think that too, but now I’m not so sure. Since the majority of humanity has cared about the god question, it seems a mistake for us not to as well. Popular vote has ruled it an important question to answer. Pragmatically, I think there are differences in the way one might live being either atheist or agnostic.

Furthermore, I argued that although many atheists are rational, not all of them are – which is also a point where I detect we have disagreement.

Oh no, I agree with you there. :^)

Indeed I have great “faith” – haha – that one could find a basis for moral foundations based on completely rational considerations, even to the point where one could construct rigorous mathematical models of social situations. Indeed this is the motivation for the area of mathematics known as game theory, or at least one of the motivations.

That is a fascinating and fruitful area of study. Together with evolutionary psychology, I believe much can be understood.

I think our misunderstanding was a difference in opinion over what being irreligious means

Maybe, but I think overall we’re on the same page.

It’s been fun, thanks. I hope others have enjoyed our discourse too!

I do believe we may have been talking past each other all this time. You say that

“The sooner we completely let go of the idea that morality is outside rational thought (and by rational, I don’t mean logic alone), the sooner we, including folks like you, can work on the complex problem of how we actually work (including our morality)”

and I completely agree with you. I never actually meant to suggest otherwise, and I do think I may have chosen some of my words poorly. I think the main confusion (and point of disagreement) was that you were arguing that “not believing in god” ie atheism, is one and the same as rational thought, whereas I would include “not caring about the god question” as also a perfectly reasonable basis for rational thought (which is where I sit), and then there are plenty of religious people who are otherwise quite rational as well. Furthermore, I argued that although many atheists are rational, not all of them are – which is also a point where I detect we have disagreement.

I certainly was not “looking for moral foundations outside of both religion and irreligious” – where I detect your undertext in “irreligious” was “rationality”. Indeed I have great “faith” – haha – that one could find a basis for moral foundations based on completely rational considerations, even to the point where one could construct rigorous mathematical models of social situations. Indeed this is the motivation for the area of mathematics known as game theory, or at least one of the motivations.

To conclude, I think our misunderstanding was a difference in opinion over what being irreligious means. To me it seems clear that there are certainly broader classes of people who are irreligious than atheists, though of course if your definitions differ from mine we will again be in disagreement.

Hope this helps.

Certainly we view certain things as intuitively wrong

Yes, a product of evolution that has reproductively benefited our ancestors, but like any of our inherited qualities, should still be subject to conscious assessment.

but, to people that we would call sociopaths/psychopaths, these things are not wrong

Well, I don’t think any moral code, regardless of its foundations, would influence those fringe cases.

My key criticism about “the new atheism” is that this hasn’t been properly considered by many of its adherents, and that it is merely a crusade on largely harmless belief systems.

I’m not familiar with this “new atheism” you refer to, but I can imagine the existance of “crusade[s] on largely harmless belief systems”. I do agree that many belief systems are “largely harmless”. But I don’t think looking for moral foundations outside of both religion and irreligious (as I thought you were suggesting) is constructive. The sooner we completely let go of the idea that morality is outside rational thought (and by rational, I don’t mean logic alone), the sooner we, including folks like you, can work on the complex problem of how we actually work (including our morality).

On the other hand, countries were religious belief is strong tend to be led by dictatorships, have high crime rates, and are aomng the most corrupt in the world.

So if atheism leaves one with no clear values to stand on, why does it seem that religious people have trouble being moral.

Actions speak louder than words.

As far as I am concerned, the question of morality and the question of belief/non-belief are two separate questions which are not really correlated (although for some people they doubtless are). In particular, I view the second question, the question of belief, as largely meaningless (though of course some people might view it as quite important). Consequently I prefer to focus on the first.

(the page numbers I use are the ones printed at the bottom of the report. Front matter will advance the Adobe software page numbers by 4)

THEKURE:

Weird that the Pew left out the color key to the chart everwhere except in the data section of the report which is on page 41 here:

The actual data is on p. 42 which will allow yopu to see that only Sweden is included, and is lumped in with Western Europe.

from the report: “The six relatively rich Western
European countries, for instance, are among the most
secular included in the survey, and with a mean score
of .24, Sweden is the most secular. Other wealthy
nations, such as Canada, Japan and Israel, also have
low levels of religiosity.”

DAVE/TUMBLEDRIED:

You’d be interested in looking at the survey data staring on p. 116 which has the restults of this question:

“Q.45 Which one of these comes closest to
your opinion? Number 1 – It is not necessary
to believe in God in order to be moral and
have good values OR Number 2 – It is
necessary to believe in God in order to be
moral and have good values.”

I think you’re quoting me out of context here. Certainly what I understand as atheism or naturalism or whatever is the stance that there is no magic explanation for the universe/creation, in particular, that there is/are no god/(s) as in the bible/Greek mythology/whatever.

Atheism as I see it is a stance – and I believe that you need more than just the rejection of the “magic” of religious dogma to make moral decisions. You still need some sort of core approach to dealing with things and making decisions. Certainly we view certain things as intuitively wrong, but, to people that we would call sociopaths/psychopaths, these things are not wrong. In particular, I think we all have been confronted with thought experiments where doing something for “the greater good” seems reprehensible, but, if we were thinking completely coldly and rationally, we would just do it.

If you are going to argue about being completely rational here, you have to quantify this intuition. My key criticism about “the new atheism” is that this hasn’t been properly considered by many of its adherents, and that it is merely a crusade on largely harmless belief systems. Or am I missing something here?