While I agree with you that the "social contract" is an important idea, I don't think it unifies all atheists and even if it did, it does not help too much in discussing the politics of atheism.
Some atheists prefer to look at social rules, ethics, morals etc in an evolutionary or Darwinian sense, suggesting that for instance alturism, or obeying societal norms, has a survival value, etc, which is not at all shaped by social contract ideas.
And even if the majority of atheists agreed to the centrality of the social contract, if they varied greatly on the "terms" of said contract you would still have trouble generalizing.
Religion also has trouble accepting a single unifying philosophy and is constrained by it's members willingness to deviate from the weight of it's traditions. How much easier would it be to achieve peace in Palestine if neither side was constrained by their belief that they were ordained to follow a destiny chosen by their god. When life is about living not about salvation the range of choices people make open dramatically. I'm not saying that this guarantees that all the ugly aspects of human nature vanish and our future is assured but that the ability to change ones position becomes more likely.
Horror of Religion
- Thread starter wet_suit_one
- Start date
You are entirely right that any doctrine limits options, often in a negative way, and it can be very hard for there to be any fruitful dialogue between groups or individuals who each feel they are on the one true path. However I think some religions, including the RCC, are moving in the direction of being more accepting and more tolerant of different ideas.Religion also has trouble accepting a single unifying philosophy and is constrained by it's members willingness to deviate from the weight of it's traditions. How much easier would it be to achieve peace in Palestine if neither side was constrained by their belief that they were ordained to follow a destiny chosen by their god. When life is about living not about salvation the range of choices people make open dramatically. I'm not saying that this guarantees that all the ugly aspects of human nature vanish and our future is assured but that the ability to change ones position becomes more likely.
The Palestine problem is a very good example. It is sometimes hard though to distinguish between racism and xenophobia which clearly exist independently of religion. There is no doubt however that bringing peace to that part of the world would be easier if Jerusalem were not so important to both sides of the conflict.
I kind of see it like a dynamic tension. Having some doctrines and cultural artifacts keeps communities together, helps enforce useful codes of conduct, encourages co-operation and charity etc, but if they become too restrictive or xenophobic they create a great deal of internal and external conflict, while if they become merely symbolic they lose their value as a cultural anchor or social glue. As with most things the trick is to find a functional and virtuous balance.
That's the strangest way of looking at it. He's trying to suggest that God does NOT exist by saying that if he DID exist, he wouldn't be so cruel and unjust. I don't think he believes for a second that the cruelties and injustices in the world are God's work. Plus, I'm sure he's as frustrated as I am with people who think that all good in the world IS God's work.How can someone like him present evidence that God is cruel and unjust without also proving God exists ?
You are dead right. He is simply attacking his opponent's argument by saying "If my opponent is correct...it means this..."That's the strangest way of looking at it. He's trying to suggest that God does NOT exist by saying that if he DID exist, he wouldn't be so cruel and unjust. I don't think he believes for a second that the cruelties and injustices in the world are God's work. Plus, I'm sure he's as frustrated as I am with people who think that all good in the world IS God's work.
