https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

If we get to dismiss Michael Shermer's claims on the bible and morality, then we get to dismiss the Bible on morality.

If ad hominems come into play over hypocrisy, then the bible has no legs to stand on.

It's the same argument. If Michael Shermer is gross in his personal life and a narcissist, then a book that condones slavery, genocide, child rape, and contains an obvious narcissist can't tell anyone else about morality.

Hooray for short cuts!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/08/2015 07:17PM by Raptor Jesus.

Amen, RJ. :)

Out of the 27 books of the New Testament, only 7 are agreed to have a known author, which is Paul. The rest are either anonymous or pseudepigraphical.

As should be well-known by now,the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were not written by Matthew, Mark, Luke or John.

Do we trust the word of anonymous sources? Do we trust their assertions of what it right and what is wrong?

They could be celibate pacifists or violent rapists for all we know. They could be liars or lunatics. For all we know, they could have been written by the time-traveling tyrant Kang the Conqueror and his evil minions for nefarious purposes.

Do we trust their morality?

ummmmmmmm, Jesus was the one who said that good fruit does not comes from bad trees. and sure there are those odd times when accurate information comes from LIARS, but immoral people frequently purposely set moral mile markers so they can win others trust and confidence,(so they can screw them over later on ) but just because ad hominem attacks exist that does not mean that the person / institution in question are not LIARS.

It's not really an ad hominem attack when a person or instituion is labeled as less than honest because they are less than honest. Its NOT ad hominem if its accurate !!!!!!!

MORmONS LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE to cite / use mention ad hominem attacks ...... as their favored ad hominem tactic to try to skirt / dodge/ deflect accurate criticism aimed at their sleazy disgusting MORmON religion.

Ad hominem THAT !!!!!

smirkorama Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's not really an ad hominem attack when a person
> or instituion is labeled as less than honest
> because they are less than honest. Its NOT ad
> hominem if its accurate !!!!!!!

Not so.

And "ad-hominem" is when a statement is structured like the following:

Because this person is immoral/bad/has lied in the past, THIS thing he says is wrong.

Which is fallacious reasoning. What determines if a statement is "right" or not is whether evidence shows it's right or not. The character of the person making the statement is irrelevant. Because even an habitual liar can (and does) make true statements.

If you want to show a statement is false, then show evidence the statement is false. Claiming it's false because of the character of the person making it is using an ad-hominem fallacy. "Don't listen to anything this person says because they're bad" is using an ad-hominem fallacy.

So if you want to show Shermer's statements false, show evidence his statements are false. Saying they're false, or should be ignored, because Shermer is "bad" is using an ad-hominem fallacy. Even if he IS "bad."

What an excellent point, Raptor.

"Christians, and honest critics of Christianity recognize the emergence of Christianity represented a change in spiritual economy."

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1689435,1689718#msg-1689718

To which Christianity do you refer, Tall Man? The very early Jewish sect led by Peter and James? Or perhaps you're referring to Pauline Christianity? Gnosticism? The Christianity of the Ebionites?

We don't have a terribly clear view of what early Christianity looked like. We don't know its genesis. When you refer to "honest critics," are you referring to the majority of biblical scholars? The consensus of New Testament scholarship does not necessarily support your claim that early Christianity was fundamentally different from Judaism of the first century.

Even then, rabbinical Judaism also arose during this time, which decentralized the worship of Yahweh from the temple and away from the Sadducees. Christianity grew alongside this movement and may have borrowed elements from them. Or the early Christians may have been Pharisees but splintered off. Or they may have come from the cult of John the Baptizer. Or the Essenes. Or another messianic sects of the area. We just don't know.

The fact is, what Christianity produced was something very much in line with the other socio-religious movements of the time. Its shift toward what we recognize today was a long and contentious evolution.

It seems to me that ad hominem attacks are a staple of this board: all the news stories about a Mormon (or Christian) getting caught committing a crime or living some hypocrisy. The whole purpose of such posts is not just information or criticism of the persons involved but rather confirmation that the LDS (or Christian) religion itself is wrong or inspiring evil, as evidenced by the misbehaviors of some members.

That's the game.

If you want to talk about morality, you better be perfect.

I loved Wagner's music in my teens and 20s--passionate, but also filled with moral themes and even esoteric spirituality--until I read more about his total egocentrism, amoral interpersonal dealings, and rabid prejudices. I know, ad hominem, but I can't unring that bell when I hear even his loftiest music.

I can enjoy H.P. Lovecraft's work, even though he was an asshole. I can enjoy Christopher Hitchen's writing even though he was a drunken ass to his children.

I can love metal, even though some of the musicians are dumb and wreck less in their personal lives.

I can separate the people from their works.

There's so much color in the world.

Taking a person as a moral guide is a bit different than enjoying the artistic work of a jerk.

By their fruits shall ye know them. I think it is legitimate for people to discuss bad things that LDS church leaders and members do. Something systemic seems to be going on. For some reason there is this correlation between membership in the LDS church and certain types of misconduct. I think there are some interesting reasons that Mormon doctrine and culture can lead people to behave in less-than-good ways.

…as witnessed by the number of its citizens in prison, compared with other countries. (Somewhat facetious, but only somewhat.)

Since I believe this thread started because of a comment of mine on the other thread, I'd like to respond.

One argument FOR belief in God is that the "God" imagined serves as an external source of discipline for the believer. This is the argument put forward, for example, by George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, John Adams, and other American founders. It is why, despite their private skepticism, they encouraged religious belief: in their view, it helped people stay disciplined, and that was preferable to law enforcement having to discipline everyone. Washington, in his farewell address, put it this way:

"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports...A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."

SO - this is an idea taken seriously by lots of thinkers over the centuries. Closer to home, all our AA friends tell us how important their newly developed "faith in a Higher Power" has been to their recover.

If there is some truth to this idea, then the gross personal behaviour of Michael Shermer *is relevant to his comments*, in that they could be legitimately seen to constitute, in themselves, a *rebuttal* to his arguments. After all, Michael Shermer lied about his accuser, slandering her, cheated on his wife, sexually harassed several other women, and possibly even committed a rape. (This was the claim of his accuser.)

SO - when Shermer asks, "Why do people need God?", one answer is: because some people, as per the judgment of Washington and so many others, require it as *external source of discipline* - even if God doesn't even really exist. Law doesn't deter them; their own sense of decency doesn't deter them; maybe sincere belief in a final reckoning before an omniscient, omnipotent God would. Simple as that.

Consider my dad in the 1970's. He toured the world as a rock star and never so much as held hands with another woman, because he was a sincere Mormon who believed God wanted him to stay faithful to his wife. And me: I toured the world with a hit song and said no to hundreds of women who most guys would kill to get near, let alone sleep with. Maybe if Michael Shermer had believed in God, his wife would have been spared a few tears, a young woman would not have been left feeling degraded or raped, and Shermer wouldn't have embarrassed himself. It is valid to bring up his behaviour because it is directly relevant to his claims.

Lastly, for the record, I type this as someone so beyond atheist that (for reasons Sam Harris has explained) I find the term as meaningless as I do offensive. Nothing I am saying here has anything to do with stumping for God, or (contrary to the implication in the original post) stumping for the Bible. I do not regard the Bible as a reliable source of history or morality; but I also view dimly Shermer's declamations against the possible utility of believing in God, and one reason for that is his own poor behaviour indicates that Shermer himself could well use an external source of discipline - even if it's imaginary.

Tal,

You say "I do not regard the Bible as a reliable source of history or morality"

That is the whole point Shermer is making. Those who claim they get their moral values from the bible are citing a source that is not the best standard of morality.

You further state "Shermer himself could well use an external source of discipline - even if it's imaginary".

Is that not rather judgmental of you and irrelevant to the central theme of his argument? Shermer is not teaching us how to be moral, he is pointing out the fallacy of so called biblical morality.

As for the example of you and your father being famous entertainers with thousands of opportunities for marital infidelity, that is beside the point and again an example of you being judgmental.

For example. Rod Stewart has enjoyed colossal long term success, yet been an admitted womaniser, but somehow enjoys a close family relationship with his wife (wives) and children.

I am not going to judge the moral values of a Tal or Randy Bachman compared with Rod Stewart, John Denver, Paul McCartney, Tom Jones, Mick Jagger etc. They should be judged on whether or not you like their music. If you do,then buy their records and attend their concerts. If not, ignore them and don't buy their music.

Maybe you should give Shermer the same break. Even if he is a slime ball, as you claim, discuss the actual point he makes in this article. It appears from your statement above "I do not regard the Bible as a reliable source of history or morality" that you do agree with Shermer on this.To suggest he may need a God, even an imaginary one is not a good argument. What about all the child raping Catholic Priests and even child abusers who are prominent Mormons? I know of many Mormon examples of adulterous Temple Presidents and and even higher ups whose son has committed child sex abuse yet been allowed to serve as a bishop.

If the reason my husband didn't f*ck hundreds of women was fear of retribution from an imaginary authority figure, my marriage is already a joke.

Darkfem Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If the reason my husband didn't f*ck hundreds of
> women was fear of retribution from an imaginary
> authority figure, my marriage is already a joke.

I agree; but suppose a marriage unfortunately is this kind of joke. Without the fear of retribution, that marriage is dead. With it, there's a line that has not yet been crossed. Perhaps the marriage can be salvaged. Isn't this worth something?

It might not be worth all you'd want. Salvaging a marriage like that might not seem like salvaging something glorious, at least not at the moment. If you're young and healthy it might be smart to look for another relationship. But people get old and lonely. A lot of people would really like to have a salvaged marriage instead of dying alone. So isn't it worth something, to salvage even a joke of a marriage, and maybe make it something at least a little more?

That's a question we'd all hope not to deal with, like the question of whether it's worth something to have a crust of stale bread to eat, instead of nothing. But the moral usefulness of theism is for worst cases. The kingdom of heaven is for the poor.

Cute, but no.

There is no such thing as a moral or immoral book. Books are badly or well written, that is all. I'm sure Oscar Wilde said it better than that but there you go.


As far as Tu quoque arguments, which is really what we're talking about, they may be technically fallacious, informally so, but perfectly reasonable in everyday life. We generally do not take relationship advice from serial cheaters, say, no matter the validity of the advice.

HUMAN: "There is no such thing as a moral or immoral book. Books are badly or well written, that is all."

COMMENT: If one starts with assumptions about morality; i.e. moral axioms, whatever their basis, and based upon such assumptions, has a "moral theory," even if largely intuitive, then a book that is inconsistent with such a theory is by definition "immoral" as to that theory. And since we all have moral "theories" (which may be and often are internally inconsistent), books, even the Bible, are rightfully judged by the application of such theories. In short, it is fair to argue that the Bible (or any other book) is "immoral" based upon some such theory of morality, or what one takes to be commonality in moral theories across a given social context.

HUMAN: As far as Tu quoque arguments, which is really what we're talking about, they may be technically fallacious, informally so, but perfectly reasonable in everyday life. We generally do not take relationship advice from serial cheaters, say, no matter the validity of the advice.

COMMENT: Exactly. But isn't this because morality is intellectually elusive, and indeed mysterious, making the source of the moral advice of added, and distortive, significance; to both our individual judgments and our own personal theories. The Bible in general psychologically recommends itself to people with a religiously oriented moral theory, for any number of reasons, allowing forgiveness of a few (or many) moral shortcomings. In contrast, an individual with apparent moral shortcomings cannot transcend such shortcomings with intellectual argument.

"The Bible in general psychologically recommends itself to people with a religiously oriented moral theory, for any number of reasons, allowing forgiveness of a few (or many) moral shortcomings."

In other words, adherents to the Bible will forgive its many moral failings because some of its moral characteristics are in line with their own thinking. Is this what you're getting at?

I, as a nonbeliever, don't have to allow for forgiveness of the Bible's many morally troubling ideals. When viewed from a contemporary perspective, one has good reason to question the overall ethical value of a book which was written in a much different moral context than the world in which we now live.

As a scholar of ancient history, I am endlessly fascinated by the books in the Bible, from the structures of narratives to the often bizarre and colorful symbolic imagery. I'm interested in how the compilers of the books, each in his time, interpreted and reorganized the stories, adding commentaries while redacting parts they considered troubling or without value to fit into their own historical and cultural context.

I'm bothered, however, that in an age where literary scholarship has been refined and the rigors of logic are more forcefully applied to texts we still allow for cherry-picking quotes from religious material and using them out of context while ignoring other portions not in line with our own ideology.

This, as I have previously stated, is not an honest way of reading this - or any - literature.

ESN: "In other words, adherents to the Bible will forgive its many moral failings because some of its moral characteristics are in line with their own thinking. Is this what you're getting at?"

COMMENTS: Adherents to the Bible will take what they deem as morally relevant and applicable to their life and faith, and apply it as a moral standard; and overlook what is not. But given the nature of morality, is that really fundamentally different from those who seek their moral guide from other sources, including favored historical figures, or their bare moral intuitions?

ESN: "I, as a nonbeliever, don't have to allow for forgiveness of the Bible's many morally troubling ideals. When viewed from a contemporary perspective, one has good reason to question the overall ethical value of a book which was written in a much different moral context than the world in which we now live."

COMMENT: But that is *your* "value" judgment, based upon *your* worldview. Surely, there are stories in the Bible that are morally inspirational in some sense, whether fact or myth. Do Christians have to insist that the problematic parts entirely trump any moral value at all? Moreover, what if someone looks to some historical figure for moral inspiration; like Washington, Gandhi, or Oscar Schindler. Doesn't that person also overlook the negative character traits and related actions that can be "explained" by history, social context, or even bad judgment?

ESN: "As a scholar of ancient history, I am endlessly fascinated by the books in the Bible, from the structures of narratives to the often bizarre and colorful symbolic imagery. I'm interested in how the compilers of the books, each in his time, interpreted and reorganized the stories, adding commentaries while redacting parts they considered troubling or without value to fit into their own historical and cultural context."

COMMENT: Well, it seems to me that a full understanding requires, to some extent, a feeling and empathy for those who found the texts morally inspiring, and were motivated to preserve their moral spirit. Looking at such texts only though a scholarly lens, without an attempt to understand their impact on gut level feelings, including moral feelings, seems to me to be missing the substantial point.

ESN: "I'm bothered, however, that in an age where literary scholarship has been refined and the rigors of logic are more forcefully applied to texts we still allow for cherry-picking quotes from religious material and using them out of context while ignoring other portions not in line with our own ideology."

COMMENT: As a scholar, that would be inexcusable, I agree. But as a human being reacting to life's vicissitudes, and searching for moral meaning and personal peace, it is quite natural; and we all do the same thing in our own way. The problem, as I see it, is when we confuse our own personal conclusions about morality (and metaphysical reality) with scholarship. By doing that it becomes too easy to point the finger at someone else, or a group, and decide that what they believe, and what supports their worldview, and what provides them with inspiration, is morally suspect. Notwithstanding, when such views encompass an adverse social or cultural impact we have no choice but to respond critically and sometimes aggressively. But even in those "justified" responses, we should keep in mind that morality is ultimately entirely subjective and intuitive, adjusting to the winds of social and religious trends, and individual worldviews.

I think you and I agree more than we disagree.

The problem comes when an exaggerated idea of the Bible's moral relevance and authority are zealously asserted, to the point that an ideology or moral theory MUST necessarily be true by virtue of its inclusion in one book or another of scripture.

This is problematic and dangerous, because it removes the responsibility, in the minds of the faithful, of determining whether or not a particular idea is reasonable or beneficial to the individual or society. If it came from the Bible, then it must be from their god, who is their ultimate source of wisdom and ethics.

An appalling number of atrocities have been committed through this sort of justification.

Oscar Wilde agrees with me, so I win.

But to your comments:

Henry Bemis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> COMMENT: If one starts with assumptions about
> morality; i.e. moral axioms, whatever their basis,
> and based upon such assumptions, has a "moral
> theory," even if largely intuitive, then a book
> that is inconsistent with such a theory is by
> definition "immoral" as to that theory. And since
> we all have moral "theories" (which may be and
> often are internally inconsistent), books, even
> the Bible, are rightfully judged by the
> application of such theories. In short, it is
> fair to argue that the Bible (or any other book)
> is "immoral" based upon some such theory of
> morality, or what one takes to be commonality in
> moral theories across a given social context.

In this context, yes; but not ultimately.

Ultimately, theories about morality are a means to an 'action' end. It is our actions that are moral or immoral; and of course books don't act.

This isn't true for the christian, however. To feel adultery in one's heart is to commit adultery. But this isn't literally true, of course.

So I prefer to think of morality as a verb and not as a thought. Our moral abstractions serve to guide our actions but in the end it is only our actions that are moral or immoral.


> COMMENT: Exactly. But isn't this because morality
> is intellectually elusive, and indeed mysterious,
> making the source of the moral advice of added,
> and distortive, significance; to both our
> individual judgments and our own personal
> theories. The Bible in general psychologically
> recommends itself to people with a religiously
> oriented moral theory, for any number of reasons,
> allowing forgiveness of a few (or many) moral
> shortcomings. In contrast, an individual with
> apparent moral shortcomings cannot transcend such
> shortcomings with intellectual argument.

The great bulk of morality for most people is straight forward and easy to grasp: don't lie, don't steal, don't kill etc. In general, do no harm. Of course, putting a reasoned, intellectual foundation underneath these basic principles can rise to graduate level stuff, but on the whole most of us derive our morality pretty simply. So no, for most people morality isn't "intellectually elusive". It isn't intellectual at all.

As for raising an individual's morality, by which I mean actions, I think Hume forever has this right. We feel, then we think; we act, then we justify. Books, any books, are places we go to think and to justify ourselves. The Bible isn't any different in this regard than other books people choose to think upon what they feel instinctually and to justify themselves to themselves and others. The Bible just happens to have staying power.

Why is that? Well, oddly enough, it's a hell of a book, THE good book, in fact. And we shouldn't blame the book because too many happen to read it very badly.

Cheers,

Human

"...they may be technically fallacious, informally so, but perfectly reasonable in everyday life."


How are tu quoque arguments "perfectly reasonable in daily life?" If you had said that its "colloquially acceptable" to judge a person's assertions based on their moral character, I might agree with you, but I question the reasonableness weighing the merits of the content of a person's argument based on your judgment of their ethical disposition.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/09/2015 11:48AM by En Sabah Nur.

Ah. You seem to balk at my using "reasonable" colloquially.

But I think we agree that it's not a terrible idea to reject the used car salesman's arguments for buying a car based upon how "greasy" the man appears to be.

Whether or not the "greasy" car salesman is, say, a sexual predator/Islamaphobic shitbag, the true value of the cars he sells remain unaffected by his behavior.

True.

But it's foolish to ignore the "greasiness" of the salesman while deciding if his offer is fair.

If the salesman is greasy and I still wanted the car, I would be more inclined to check Carfax,Bluebook values and have mechanic look it over. Not that doing those things isnt a good idea anyway

Most psychologically mature people understand the distinction between idealization and reality. We have a human need to admire and idealize others, but when they disappoint us, as they inevitably do because they are human, too, we should learn how to cope with disappointment and still acknowledge what these flawed individuals can teach us.

Because we are all flawed, and yet we all have potential to contribute something good to this planet before we kick. That's part of what makes humans interesting.

Buddha, for example, apparently abandoned his wife and child to set out on his path toward enlightenment. That's a pretty sucky thing to do. And yet, if we simply dismiss all morally flawed humans, that is a childish and defensive reaction. At the same time, this does not mean we shouldn't have a moral compass and sense of ethical responsibility. But that ethical code does not need to be predicated on false notions of human perfection.

Tom and others:

A few things.

1.) Shermer is doing a lot more than casting doubt on the Bible. He is blatantly endorsing certain moral propositions. In addition, he is claiming that humans don't need God to be good, and even, that belief in God makes us worse. So I have yet to see a valid objection to my comments on his piece so far;

2.) Yes, of course I am making judgments - just like you, Michael Shermer and everyone else on the planet. I adjudge, for example, that sexual violation, murder, theft, fraud, etc., all make human life worse, in almost every conceivable case, if not in every case.

So a question naturally arises to what sorts of incentives and disincentives would, at the least cost, lead to a diminution of those things, and an increase in things like social trust, shared humane ethics, etc. And that is where discussions of religion emerge.

In the particular case of Shermer's personal behaviour, and of his pal James Randi, and of the moral pronouncements of Richard Dawkins, yes I very much *do* see them as socially disadvantageous. I do not see sexual harassment as socially positive. I do not see soliciting sex from desperate young teenagers as socially positive. I do not see masterminding felony identify fraud as socially positive. I do not see morally equating raping a child with teaching that child how to sing "I Am a Child of God" as socially positive. I do not see a "morality" which obligates mothers to abort their handicapped children as socially positive. I do not see using a position of prominence to slander a victim of a sexual assault, or at least very boorish behaviour, as socially positive. All of these things, if left to grow, would make our social life terrible.

So again, the question becomes, what sorts of things discourage that behaviour? In the case of the three guys at issue here, clearly the LAW has not deterred them. Their own consciences, such as they are, have not deterred them. The expectations of friends or relatives have not deterred them. What else might work?

WELL - if you ask Alice Cooper, the biggest reason for his sobriety is his faith in a Higher Power. Millions of sober people would agree with him. *I* don't need that to stay sober - but others do. So, great. Whatever works - because the fewer lunatic drunks we have running around (or boors, or fraudsters, or cheaters, etc.), the better off we all are. I couldn't care less if what worked was belief in Yahweh, astrology, Deepak Chopra, or a rock somewhere. Maybe, with some sincere belief in the right set of values imagined in the person of some God figure, Dawkins wouldn't be promoting his proto-eugenics agenda, Shermer wouldn't be slandering a girl he evidently preyed upon, and Randi wouldn't be masterminding federal crimes, and a number of people would be better off for it. Far from being "irrelevant" or "fallaciously ad hominem", my comments on this are precisely on point.

3.) Michael Shermer's list of reasons for why our species does not need God ignores a large, and growing, body of compelling evidence, from many different scientific fields, indicating how religion/various forms of theism have helped, and continue to help, human groups survive, and even flourish, on a planet utterly indifferent to their fates. (This is not to say there are no costs to religion, or no examples of metastisis, or that any religion is *true*, or even that the question is at all settled).

You can read discussions of that evidence in books like, "Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth?" by political scientist Eric Kaufman, "The Righteous Mind" by psychologist Jonathan Haidt, "Darwin's Cathedral" by evolutionary biologist David Sloan Wilson, "The Faith Instinct" by science journalist Nicolas Wade, "Why God Won't Go Away" by neuroscientist Andrew Newberg, "Wired for Culture" by evolutionary biologist Mark D. Pagel, and many others. That I know of, each one of these authors has no religious beliefs. Their research is thorough, constrained by data, and scientific in all the best ways. It deserves careful consideration, in my view, for anyone interested in these questions.

Questions about whether we need God merit more than a glib list of examples as cynically one-sided as anything we ever read on the FARMS website, which ignores all counter-examples.

Tal,

If you need belief in a higher power to help you be good and not break the law, I pity you. Whatever helps a person beat addiction ought to be good but not necessarily so, on a long term basis. Maybe one day Alice Cooper will be able to fight his addiction without his imaginary friend. In the meantime whatever works for him must be helpful and I wish him well.

Ad hominem attacks on the likes of Shermer is not a logical way of testing his argument. You seem to be hung up on Shermer. That is why I made a comment in the original OP in an attempt to avoid derailing the actual issues. You have already written at length on Shermer's morality according to you. The point of the original OP was to consider whether the bible was a good source on which to base moral values.

With the examples of ghastly actions in the bible and the fact that Jesus said nothing of moral value that had not already been said by others before him, I am of the view Shermer's case is made. You have also agreed the bible is not a good guide for morals therefore, in that respect you agree with Shermer.

As to his morals I'll leave that to your judgment, but I still maintain his arguments stand on their own to be evaluated, whether he is 'good' or 'evil'.

By that same measure, I do not enquire into the moral values of people such as William Lane Craig. I try instead to evaluate his theistic and Christian arguments and evidence. He may be the most ethical man alive or he may be a monster in his secret private life. I do not know and have no need to know to evaluate his arguments.

Hello Tom et al

1.) Whether I personally require belief in God or not is irrelevant to this discussion. We are talking about whether overall, religion/theism can provide net benefits, and why or why not;

2.) In your comments on addiction, you assume that placebos (like "God") are bad. What is the basis for that assumption, *if it can be shown that certain placebos for certain people lead to positive outcomes*? If Granny's chronic back pain vanishes because she thinks a sugar pill is the latest wonder drug from Glaxo-Smith-Kline, who cares? If Alice stops destroying his life and the lives of others because of belief in God, who cares?;

3.) Shermer's piece went FAR beyond the question of whether the Bible provides a good source of moral values. All anyone has to do to confirm this is read it. It is much broader than that;

4.) I not only agree with Shermer about the unreliability of the Bible as a source of ethics, I do not even regard it as a source at all, in that it is incoherent, and therefore, meaningless: there is almost no "ethics" one cannot find tacitly or explicitly endorsed in that book. But the larger point is that Shermer's piece is manifestly about far more than whether the Bible provides a good source of morality. It speaks about "belief in God" for the most part, and that is what I am responding to;

5.) Logically speaking, Michael Shermer could be a great moral philosopher while himself behaving immorally. That is, Shermer could be a hypocrite, but that would not logically mean that his moral arguments themselves were invalid. This seems to be the point you are trying to make, and I don't dispute the logic of that. I am not arguing against that point, in other words. I am arguing something else:

A.) We have a prima facie reason to be suspicious of moral pronouncements from a man who has expressed no remorse for his sexual predation, lied to cover it up, and even slandered his accuser. Just like we have reason to be suspicious about financial advice from a bankrupt man who's already gone bankrupt six different times, or health advice from a 400 pound drug addict smoker, or sexual advice from a virgin. Is it *logically possible* these guys have great advice to give? Yeah, sure, I guess. Just like it's logically possible that the Unabomber Manifesto contains the greatest political philosophy of all time. But the fact is that for any rational person, the credibility of these people is suspect. The burden of proof for them is higher - even much higher;

B.) Following along (A), one obvious rebuttal to Shermer's claims that humans don't need God to be good is the fact that he and his non-God buddies *unapologetically* practice gross, criminal behaviour in their personal lives, which *hurts* people - and *they all cover up for each other*. Dawkins defended Shermer and basically told his accuser to shut up, *even though Dawkins acknowledged that she was blackout drunk at the time of their sexual liason*. Dawkins also defended Randi and his lover for their felony, without expressing a word of concern for their innocent victim. Randi never publicly warned women against Shermer's sexual predations at their conferences; he protected Shermer. Shermer has defended some of Dawkins's twisted moral opinions. Et cetera.

Don't you get it? These guys are just the same as all the other would-be alpha male sociopaths out there - like those we see in religious organizations, political organizations, business organization, and everywhere else - taking whatever the hell they want from those underneath them, then covering up for each other's bad behaviour, laughing about it, and it has been going on for years. These are guys who clearly have used their power, fame, wealth and status to practice, defend, or preach socially nauseating and CRIMINAL behaviour. They're no different than Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and the boys all lying for each other to cover up their enjoyment of the fruits of their power and position.

YET...of COURSE...like the Mormon guys, the Shermer crew don't at all flinch from making all sorts of moral pronouncements to the rest of us, and telling us all about how it's RELIGION - NOT, say, the darker aspect of human nature, like pure selfishness, which exist independently of religion or irreligion - which leads to gross behaviour. Can you see how nuts this is? These guys *themselves* are living refutations of their very own claims, because they themselves have NOT been "good without God". In fact, they have been GLEEFULLY "not good without God". Brazenly so. Unapologetically so. At least when Jimmy Swaggart sinned, he actually *believed he had done something wrong, and apologized publicly*. But we don't even get that from the Shermer-Randi-Dawkins crew. We get James Randi announcing to the world that felony identity theft of a living, breathing human being whose live has been ruined, is a "victimless crime". And we get Dawkins telling a possible rape victim to shut up.

I don't know about anybody else on this board, but I don't want to hear unapologetic sex predators tell me about women's rights. I don't want to hear unapologetic thieves tell me about how theft victims don't suffer. I don't want to hear unapologetic liars tell me about the virtue of honesty. I don't want to hear non-theist sex predators, liars, and thieves tell me that it is *theism* which creates rapists, liars and thieves. It is more absurd than anything we could ever hear at a Mormon General Conference these days.

Just my two million cents.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/09/2015 06:09PM by Tal Bachman.

Of course being wrong about some things doesnt make a person wrong about everything. However, when people repeatedly do morally reprehensible things whether those things include sexual misbehavior,exaggerating the misdeeds of religion while excusing atheist misdeeds, rabid Islamophobia, misrepresenting history,or blatant egotism, I reserve the right to be suspicious of them and their ideas.

bona dea unregistered Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Of course being wrong about some things doesnt
> make a person wrong about everything. However,
> when people repeatedly do morally reprehensible
> things whether those things include sexual
> misbehavior,exaggerating the misdeeds of religion
> while excusing atheist misdeeds, rabid
> Islamophobia, misrepresenting history,or blatant
> egotism, I reserve the right to be suspicious of
> them and their ideas.

Hear Hear!

It seems some RfMers are hung up on the technicalities of academic logic.

In the real world, people are more than justified in dismissing Bill Cosby words, say, should he start writing books about morality.

Lots of people behave decently without fear of divine retribution. For lots of people, however, there simply isn't much temptation to perform heinous acts. The cost-benefit analysis just doesn't support doing serious evil. And it's great that the world has gotten easier this way. I wouldn't want to go back to the nasty and brutish world of our ancestors.

Suppose, however, that I am really sorely tempted to do something really horrible. Suppose I'm depressed and desperate, and then I see a chance for even a brief escape from my misery, at someone else's expense. Suppose that the likely consequences on Earth for me are mild at worst. But then suppose that, even in my desperation, I can't help thinking seriously that God is watching and will impose further consequences in eternity.

Why the heck wouldn't that provide significant further deterrent for me from doing evil? Even if you think this belief of mine is a delusion, it would be a convenient delusion from your point of view, if I were really desperate and you were the only thing that stood in my way. You could also still hope that I'm just too decent a guy to hurt you. But if I were really on the edge, surely my belief in God would be an extra restraint worth having.

I'll admit that there are probably a few people whom I would trust to behave decently, even under extreme temptation, despite their having no belief in God's judgement. I'll also admit that plenty of superficially religious people don't really believe in anything much contrary to their own interests, and that quite a few people who do have genuine religious convictions are still able to stoop pretty low, on some excuse or other.

If I were stuck on a desert island with someone, though, I'd feel safer from really serious harm from them, if I knew that they really did believe in a just God. I think the people from previous centuries who cited theism as a moral bulwark weren't just being naive. I think they lived in a tougher world than most of us do today, and set a correspondingly higher value on moral restraints that can still hold up in worst case scenarios.