Comments on: Props to Mitt Romney

By: Sandy

Sandy — Fri, 16 May 2008 21:56:51 +0000

-Don’t most people get their basic ideas about right and wrong from their parents?
-There is more and more evidence that morality evolved along with living in groups.
-A sense of fairness has recently been demonstrated in animals, and it is certainly found in very young children.
- People who regard religious teachings as the only or main path to morality just don’t trust humans to define what is right and wrong. Yet there is a consensus on many basic principals of ethics and morals over cultures. If they don’t trust humans, they don’t trust themselves. That is what they are saying, basically.

By: Leif

Leif — Fri, 16 May 2008 21:02:09 +0000

Surely there are some people that wouldn’t behave without some sort of indoctrination. The real question is whether they are the rule or the exception.

By: Coin

Coin — Fri, 16 May 2008 00:01:57 +0000

So does this mean he’s decided to become a liberal again now?

By: The Almighty Bob

The Almighty Bob — Wed, 14 May 2008 11:29:11 +0000

You’re not kidding about the last point, and I am an atheist – and I self-identify as such because I don’t have the belief in the species to be a humanist (side point: what the hell happened to humanism as a philosophy? Where did it vanish to?), so I can’t exactly take issue with your scepticism towards “the wisdom of crowds.” I suppose it’s just an appreciation that I’m one of the masses that has me resist… (”,)

By: Clark

Clark — Wed, 14 May 2008 03:33:43 +0000

But I think that’s Voltaire’s point. Most people (at least at the time he was writing) learned morality via religion. Without religion most wouldn’t take the path of the philosopher.

Note I’m not defending Voltaire here. Just that I think it a pretty defensible approach to take. (I should add that Voltaire real fear was of irreligious kings – less of an issue in a democracy)

As to the first gen of neo-conservatives I definitely disagree with them. But they had a very Platonic skepticism of the wisdom of the masses. While some have a faith in democracy as epistemological wisdom I’m pretty skeptical of that. (I’d think most scientists should be given American views on things like evolution – or in Europe on new age mysticisms and other such things) I think Democracy is amazingly important but I have no faith in “the masses.” Given that one might see religion as useful as a means of controlling the masses. One might break out of this approach from say a Nietzschean perspective. But arguably Nietzsche has no faith in the masses either even if he acknowledges their slavery to priests. He only thinks some have the will to be more.

Once again I’m not defending any of these views. (I’m not even an atheist) I just think that some see the atheist position as more unified than it is. There’s actually quite a bit of diversity of views towards religion.

By: The Almighty Bob

The Almighty Bob — Tue, 13 May 2008 13:00:36 +0000

Clark: quite possibly – I’m unwilling to go read that many bios. “,)
I find that point of view to be…. kinda disgusting, actually. It assumes those advancing that idea to be completely superior to “the masses,” when in fact about the only difference is money and a sheepskin. Oh, and enough arrogance for any thirty “normal” people.
Morality is learned behaviour, not fear of the Great Sky Beard.

By: Winghunter

Winghunter — Mon, 12 May 2008 22:48:29 +0000

Atheists suffer from the same mental midgetry as religious zealots.

They both push far beyond the boundaries of what’s reasonable and both harp about the other.

So, what’s the difference in being incapable for their own governance, not too damn much.

By: Clark

Clark — Mon, 12 May 2008 22:38:59 +0000

One could follow Voltaire and see religion as useful for the masses. Didn’t the first generation of neo-conservatives often consist of atheists who thought religion was important to maintain the morality of the masses? It is a defensible position even for an atheist.

By: Reginald Selkirk

Reginald Selkirk — Mon, 12 May 2008 13:40:54 +0000

The fall of ALL of the great civilizations results from forgetting God. No nation has ever remained in power when morality subsides.

So your argument relies on linking morality to theism?

By: bill fitzgerald

bill fitzgerald — Mon, 12 May 2008 12:08:54 +0000

The fall of ALL of the great civilizations results from forgetting God. No nation has ever remained in power when morality subsides. History explains this very clearly.