Ep. 102: How can we not sin?

[Dr Mundo]

You try to live an ethical and fulfilling life without religious belief.
You think science and reason lead to more reliable knowledge then faith.
You support secular government and an open society that guarentees human rights for all.
You make sense of the world using reason, experience and shared human values.
You see no convincing evidence for Gods, the supernatural, or life after death.
You believe that moral values are properly founded in human empathy, and scientific understanding.
And Finally you must live this life on the basis that it is the only life we'll have, that therefore we must make the most of it for ourselves, eachother and our world.

The definitions that I'm familiar with would break those statements up between the three categories like this:
RATIONALISM:
You think science and reason lead to more reliable knowledge then faith.
You make sense of the world using reason, experience and shared human values.
You see no convincing evidence for gods, the supernatural, or life after death.

SECULARISM:
You support secular government and an open society that guarentees human rights for all.

HUMANISM:
You believe that moral values are properly founded in human empathy, and scientific understanding.
You try to live an ethical and fulfilling life without religious belief.
And finally you must live this life on the basis that it is the only life we'll have, that therefore we must make the most of it for ourselves, each other and our world.

Is my way of looking at this out of date? Has Humanism come to encompass the other categories by default? It might be that you believe that Rationalism leads quite naturally to Humanism and Secularism?

And what is Reasonism, by the way? I can't quite figure out how it's not just Rationalism for the 21st century.

This is a list of questions to see if you identify with Secular Humanism. I agree 100% with all of the questions. Meaning my answer is Yes. So its not just Humanism and its not just secularism, I don't know what rationalism is, and from what KTR has talked about with regards to Reasonism, I feel like all those would be agreeable to a Reasonist as well as a Secular Humanist. Either way since I agree with all those principle questions I find no problem accepting the label of Secular Humanist.

[mitchellmckain]

I have a better opinion of humanity than do you.

Well, I will say that you have an opinion of a better humanity than I do. That's for sure. But a better opinion is a more accurate one, not a more idealized one. I don't see a good reason to embrace yours.

How can you say that? Where is your blind faith in humanity?

[Emery]

I wrote in another thread that I’d not be posting for a while due to crazy schedule but had a chance to listen to this podcast just now while taking a break from work in an airplane seat on the way back from Japan.
Quick comments I’d like to share once back on the ground:

Emery,
This time I can offer a little criticism on your work. I hope it might be of some use.
Me thinks you and Scott can get away with fairly ad hoc podcast conversations and make them interesting because you’ve talked enough to really know and appreciate each other – your conversations are between “a Christian and an atheist” not “a Christian versus an atheist.” (Also, it helps that both of you are very sincere, generally articulate, funny, and easy-going guys.) Conversely, to be blunt I found almost the entire conversation here tedious and fairly devoid of substance.

With new theist guests, perhaps you should outline more substantive topics and prepare for them more carefully in advance? (And there was a suggestion along this line for a future episode with these two individuals.)
That way, both you and your guests might do a lot less hemming and hawing and chortling (the latter was them, mostly) and cover some real ground.

You’d also be a lot less likely, I think, to let highly questionable assertions and innuendos go unexplored and/or unchallenged. There were many such moments in this podcast, and you also made one or two remarks yourself that were pretty off-the-wall. For me, the most egregious examples were letting the bits about “atheist denominationalism” and the need for a person who is simply a non-believer to possess “a core dogma” go by, and your blooper about atheism per se being “fractious.”
Lawd have mercy, so to speak!

In brief, I think the best way for you to improve your podcast performance, to the extent that might be necessary in a case like this, would be for you to listen to yourself again and to rethink how different responses and different preparation might have made the podcast more interesting for all.

Needless to say, given current work and family obligations I’m sure you have lots of leisure time to do this. And given all the extra sleep you’re surely getting these days with the twins in the house, I’ll bet your discernment and insight have never been sharper!
In other words, if you re-listen to this podcast, don’t beat yourself up over it.

Last, just speaking for myself, of course, I have to say that it’s very unlikely that I’d listen to another podcast with this fellow Glen, whose speaking style (content entirely aside) annoys me very greatly. It’s clear he’s adopted an amalgam of vocal patterns from talk radio, gas bag preachers, and advertising pitch men. I hope for his sake he doesn’t speak to family and friends in this manner. In any event, there are lots of quieter, more articulate, and well, more balanced, speakers on the web. I’d simply rather spend the time I have listening to them.

And by the way, I don’t think I’ve EVER heard any atheist / freethinker / secular humanist speak with this sales-pitch style, and I think the reason for that is probably that one can’t SELL evidence and reason, while on the other hand anyone can simply talk about those things honestly and sincerely.

Et tu Brad, et tu? I only now have time to respond, and I'd like to say I really appreciate everyone's input on the show, especially your and NHB's. Funny but I've gotten mixed reviews on this show, some really like it, others don't. It seems more polarizing than previous shows. I wonder what that means. In any event, I am glad for the feedback, especially any negative feedback, as that helps me figure out how to improve.

As for Glenn and Joey, I really enjoyed talking to them and don't share your opinion of Glenn's speaking style, although I do recognize what you mean. Perhaps I grew up with guys that spoke like Glenn, with the difference that most of them were not open to discussion as Glenn seems to be. I plan to continue discussions with Joey and Glenn, as well as Tony and Scott and others that we have slated for this year's menu of shows. I'll be sure to include in the show descriptions who the speakers are.

All this being said, I want to thank you Brad for all the kind support over the years, and having that beer with me on Hawthorne Ave. I don't always get to respond, but I really appreciate all the feedback.

For everyone who has not met Brad, he has a job that enables him to get around the country. So if he shows up in your neighborhood wanting to buy you a beer, take him up on it. He's truly a nice guy (and no, he's not a travelling Amway salesman).

[Emery]

To get back to the thread topic, can anyone explain where Emery was going with the idea that as long as we have limited knowledge we will inevitably sin? This is strange to me. In fact, the opposite seems to be true: if someone performs an action that causes harm, but they had no way of knowing that it would cause harm, don't we understand that they were not morally responsible?
It seems like there is an equivocation here. An action that causes harm is not always morally wrong. Also, an action can be morally wrong without causing any harm. For example, Emery and I are at a New Year's party. I'm drunk out of my mind, and he is sober. We both get in our cars and drive home. I make it home safe. Emery's car, however, has an unknown defect in the brake system. On his way home, his brakes fail and he kills a nun on her way to feed some homeless orphans. Now, Emery has done great harm, but only because there were facts he did not know; namely his faulty brakes. I, on the other hand, have done no harm, but have still acted irresponsibly and in fact immorally.
With that in mind, what was Emery trying to say on the podcast? Does he think that Christianity counts an action as sin just because it has harmful, unforseen consequences? That is not true. Does he think that God has a secret set of instructions that we are supposed to follow in every situation, and then he punishes us for not knowing about these arcane rules? That if also false. What, exactly, is the argument here?

Hi Drone. I think you have it right: I do understand the Christian god having a "secret set" of instructions that we must follow. My will continues to get us in trouble, and Thy will continues to be a mystery.

[MattusMaximus]

Howdy all,

I just wanted to say that I really liked the last podcast. I particularly liked the fact that you guys got into the question of the various kinds (or denominations, if you will) of atheism that are out there. However, I have one point to nitpick, and that is the confusion over the fact that some people think agnosticism is a distinct philosophy/viewpoint/etc from atheism.

Let me explain: I, for example, call myself both an atheist and an agnostic. I am an atheist because I don't believe in any god(s) or the supernatural or the afterlife, etc. However, the reason why I don't believe in these things is because of a lack of evidence for them, so my atheism is a kind of "default mode" of thinking, just as I wouldn't go believing in the existence of alien life without substantial and solid evidence to support it. At the same time I am an agnostic, because if someone asks if there's a god(s), I say "I don't know" because I really don't know, just as I am agnostic on the question of whether or not alien life exists. Until such a time as sufficient evidence is presented for the existence of god(s)/aliens/whatever, I feel no need to believe in these things.

I hope this makes sense, because it seems that all too often people make a hard and fast distinction between atheism and agnosticism that glosses over these important details.

Cheers - MM

[mitchellmckain]

I hope this makes sense, because it seems that all too often people make a hard and fast distinction between atheism and agnosticism that glosses over these important details.

I never heard that anyone claimed that there was any kind of absolute distinction between these things. It is certainly a whole spectrum and a spectrum that has been presented in numerous ways. One that is well known on this forum, though it is far from comprehensive, is the spectrum that Dawkins put in his book:

1.Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung: "I do not believe, I know."
2.De facto theist. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. "I don't know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there."
3.Leaning towards theism. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. "I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God."
4.Completely impartial. Exactly 50 per cent. "God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable."
5.Leaning towards atheism. Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. "I do not know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be skeptical."
6.De facto atheist. Very low probability, but short of zero. "I don't know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."
7.Strong atheist. "I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung knows there is one."

I am also aware of a number of variations with regards to agnosticism, which can mean...
1. You believe that you cannot know whether there is a God or not. (this is the traditionally academic meaning of the word and is sometimes called strong agnosticism)
2. You neither believe nor disbelieve that there is a God, usually because you have decided that there is insufficient evidence to decide one way or another. (this is the traditionally common usage of the word and is sometimes called weak agnosticism)
3. You believe that since any deity that may exist (consistent with the evidence) effectively has no impact or involvement in human existence, it doesn't really matter whether such a deity exists or not. (This version called apathetic agnosticism or pragmatic agnosticism was my father's position on this issue)

These positions are not entirely incompatable with either theism or atheism and there are in fact agnostic theists and agnostic atheists, who may say that they believe or disbelieve but do not claim to have conclusive evidence either way. There can be more subtle combinations as well. I for example, am a theist (Christian) but I do not believe that any proofs of God's existence are valid, that objective evidence is impossible and thus that both theist and atheist positions are completely rational.

I was interested to see in the Wikipedia article the related term of "ignosticism" which claims:

The view that a coherent definition of a deity must be put forward before the question of the existence of a deity can be meaningfully discussed. If the chosen definition is not coherent, the ignostic holds the noncognitivist view that the existence of a deity is meaningless or empirically untestable. A.J. Ayer, Theodore Drange, and other philosophers see both atheism and agnosticism as incompatible with ignosticism on the grounds that atheism and agnosticism accept "a deity exists" as a meaningful proposition which can be argued for or against.

I have always resonated with this view, and my first response to the question of whether I believe in God for most of my life was that the meaningful question is not "whether God exists" but "what is God?" This can be translated variously as "what the heck are you talking about anyway?" and "whether I believe in it or not depends on what you think this 'God' thing is exactly".

[Drone]

Emery,

Okay, I get you now. I agree with you that if that its how things are, God is playing a cruel game at our expense. Not cool. Fortunatly, the Bible makes it quite clear that God never condemns us for breaking rules we don't know about. Maybe we are working from different ideas of sin and punishment? Would it change your position if i was right about God not having secret rules?

By the way, Drone and Glen from Think Between the Lines are one and the same. I really want to change my screen name to Christian Drone, but I don't know how.

[BigIdeaSeeker]

By the way, Drone and Glen from Think Between the Lines are one and the same.

Oh, hey, Glen! I'm in the middle of TBtL episode #8. On an earlier episode you had said that atheism is not a religion, but it is a world view. I was gonna argue, but you're clarified in episode 8 (though I still disagree, I understand from your point of view what you're saying). I loved the Cheers theme song bit (for those of you who haven't yet, check out Joey and Glen's podcast). I'm actually going to recommend that episode to the Christians in my Reasonable Faith group (most of whom would disagree with your pneumatology) since you clarify that an atheist doesn't have to say God can't exist (I think they don't believe me, their token atheist).

Fortunatly, the Bible makes it quite clear that God never condemns us for breaking rules we don't know about. Maybe we are working from different ideas of sin and punishment? Would it change your position if i was right about God not having secret rules?

Can you provide verification that the Bible makes this clear? I mean, Adam and Eve had no knowledge of good and evil, right and wrong. They ate the fruit and they and all of nature fell because of that action. Seems they were condemned for breaking a rule they didn't know about. Okay, they knew about the rule ("don't eat this"), but they had no knowledge of good and evil. From then on, every human was born in sin, falling short of the mark, and condemned to damnation.

[Keep The Reason]

Fortunatly, the Bible makes it quite clear that God never condemns us for breaking rules we don't know about.

If this is true, then one of the most immoral, unethical and outright criminal things anyone could do is offer to someone the rules. Doing so makes every Christian complicit in putting before the ignorant a choice that could lead to one's eternal punishment, and I fail to see how any human being can take such a course to oneself.

By your argument, remaining in ignorance of these rules guarantees us eternal reward. Only by introducing us to the rules, does one have a choice in keeping to them or not. at the very least, according to this perspective you'd do better in helping people attain eternal rewards by remaining silent, and not giving them the information that would thus require them to make a choice that could lead to disaster.

[yjoeyh]

Only by introducing us to the rules, does one have a choice in keeping to them or not. at the very least, according to this perspective you'd do better in helping people attain eternal rewards by remaining silent, and not giving them the information that would thus require them to make a choice that could lead to disaster.

Although I'm not going to pretend I agree at all with this way of thinking, or that I think hiding the truth is is a good or noble thing to do in general... I will say that I read what you write here, there are many overtones in there as to why I reject the ideas of evangelicalism and "great commission" type Christianity, and also why I've objected to some recent topics that imply that Christians are somehow obligated to prosthelytize Atheists.
Now the problem I see though is that just by observing the consequences of bad choices (ours and others) in life, we have the information necessary to know the disastrous outcomes of the choices we make... yet we choose to make them anyway.

[yjoeyh]

I have one point to nitpick, and that is the confusion over the fact that some people think agnosticism is a distinct philosophy/viewpoint/etc from atheism.

Hey MM! Yeah I have to agree with you 100% there. I've mentioned several times on our show that one thing Christians and Atheists often seem to agree on is that "Agnostics" are Atheists in reality. It seems the people who are more comfortable wearing the label of "Agnostic" would rather just not be labeled as an Atheist. If we ask a person what they think about God.. "I''m an Atheist" is an honest answer, but "I'm an Agnostic" avoids it. Agnosticism answers the question of what you think about knowledge... not what you think about God. But we infer from such a person that they do not believe God exists, so they actually are Atheists.
I 'think' I know what part of the show you are talking about.. when Emery called himself more "Agnostic." But I don't think he meant it as in a non-Atheist. I think he meant he was much more of an Agnostic Atheist than a Gnostic Atheist. That's the kind of thing I was wanting to clarify anyway, as those are two different polar ways of thinking that different Atheists have.

[Keep The Reason]

Although I'm not going to pretend I agree at all with this way of thinking, or that I think hiding the truth is is a good or noble thing to do in general... I will say that I read what you write here, there are many overtones in there as to why I reject the ideas of evangelicalism and "great commission" type Christianity, and also why I've objected to some recent topics that imply that Christians are somehow obligated to prosthelytize Atheists.

Now the problem I see though is that just by observing the consequences of bad choices (ours and others) in life, we have the information necessary to know the disastrous outcomes of the choices we make... yet we choose to make them anyway.

You would have to support that "the truth" is actually the truth -- which this entire forum and many like it, and countless other debates and denominational conflicts have proved cannot be done. But if your goal is to bring everyone to salvation, then your best bet is to remain silent on the method. Come what may, your god will sort out those who know and those who don't-- and your hands won't be stained with any "infinite bloodshed". But when it comes to those that really do not know-- to insist that your truth needs to be applied to them, and thus risk their immortal souls-- wow, I simply cannot imagine that my need to speak "truth" -- subjective as all get out -- trumps their eternal salvation. Talk about arrogance and presumption!

Of course, once more, the atheist simply doesn't have paradoxical problems like this-- only theists have this problem, and so you have the choice to make between authenticity, honesty, integrity -- and the salvation of your fellow human beings. I certainly haven't put a gun to your head and said, "I demand you adopt circular, self-defeating, and paradoxical worldviews immediately!" You've done that of your own volition; I'm merely pointing out the incredible costs to your humanity by doing so. But make no mistake-- if this "condemned only upon what we know" is true-- your every post risks the eternal disposition of every human being who reads it, and your podcast does the same. I'm glad that burden is not on my shoulders.

By the way-- plenty of choices I and billions of others have made are good choices, though I guess the theist sees humans as only grounded in sin at some core level. But then once more, we see the anti-human tenor of theism; even good choices are likely to be labeled "disastrous" by creatures inherently sinful. As mitch says, you (and he) see evil as "epidemic"; I see humanity as heroic in its struggles; clearly, some evil people, but by far good and decent people comprise our species. Not "perfect" -- which is a useless, artificial and paradoxical standard -- but good, and decent, and heroic daily.

[yjoeyh]

For everyone who has not met Brad, he has a job that enables him to get around the country. So if he shows up in your neighborhood wanting to buy you a beer, take him up on it. He's truly a nice guy (and no, he's not a travelling Amway salesman).

For Brad on anyone else in the forums... if you are ever planning on being in the Nashville area ... let me know... the beer's on me!

[JustJim]

If you come to Dayton, Ohio let me know! I'll treat you to authentic Japanese cuisine and Japanese beer!

Jim

[MattusMaximus]

I was interested to see in the Wikipedia article the related term of "ignosticism" which claims:

The view that a coherent definition of a deity must be put forward before the question of the existence of a deity can be meaningfully discussed. If the chosen definition is not coherent, the ignostic holds the noncognitivist view that the existence of a deity is meaningless or empirically untestable. A.J. Ayer, Theodore Drange, and other philosophers see both atheism and agnosticism as incompatible with ignosticism on the grounds that atheism and agnosticism accept "a deity exists" as a meaningful proposition which can be argued for or against.

I have always resonated with this view, and my first response to the question of whether I believe in God for most of my life was that the meaningful question is not "whether God exists" but "what is God?" This can be translated variously as "what the heck are you talking about anyway?" and "whether I believe in it or not depends on what you think this 'God' thing is exactly".

Yes, this is a good way of looking at it. I have often attempted to have discussions/debates with people concerning god(s), and it is amazing to me just how many people are not even willing to set down a definition of "God" at the beginning of the conversation. And not doing so makes such a discussion terribly frustrating because, in my experience, it inevitably leads to a fair amount of goalpost moving at some point. It also shows me that people aren't necessarily taking too much time to think seriously about the subject if they don't even bother to attempt a definition of "God".