Abnormal Interests

The missing ingredient in both articles is 'syncretism'. All humans have an endless ability to embrace mutually exclusive ideologies - not just politicians. Dilbert celebrates this part of human nature for the enjoyment of us all.

Thus, secular humanism is a hybrid of Atheist theology and semi-Christian ethics which blithely ignores the conflict. Christians too have embraced the most profound of theology and the worst of sins at times.

A third possibility is that the interaction between Christians and Atheists can improve the moral situation in a way that neither could do on their own. For example, the Atheist might want to set a better moral example just to spite the Christians. The Christians, faced with the constant accusations, are periodically goaded into behaving.

Looney,

All this is interesting. My own view is that we all share a common human condition that under many circumstances favors moral behavior. This human condition lends itself to the establishment of moral imperatives. As the complexities and scope of our social interactions increase, many, but not all, of these imperatives change also. This does not mean that I am a moral relativist. In my own view, a couple, somewhat deferring, incarnations of neo-Kantian ethics come close to establishing the grounds for universal moral behavior in the context of our shared human condition. It this regard, I am a moral realist. I believe that morality beyond simple clan altruism can and must be taught. I just don't think any religion, has a corner on the ethics market. Nor do I think atheism or, as I prefer, secularism has a corner on that market either.

Duane,

I'm with you one hundred per cent.

Anyone foolish enough to affirm that an atheist or secularist cannot be a better person than a believer of one's flavor of choice deserves to be raked over the coals.

Anyone foolish enough to affirm that Christians for example have not done terrible things in their deity's name deserves to be taken back in time to stand trial under the auspices of Torquemada.

What any of this implies about being a believer or not is another, quite separate question.

John,

Thanks. Your comment, "What any of this implies about being a believer or not is another, quite separate question" is very important. In my view it has absolutely nothing do to with being a believer or not. It has even less to do with the existence or lack of existence of a god or gods. But it is shocking how often the issue of morality comes up as the "best" defense of faith and God.

"Anyone foolish enough to affirm that an atheist or secularist cannot be a better person than a believer of one's flavor of choice deserves to be raked over the coals."

Then there is context: Stalin, Mao, Attaturk and others killed more people in the name of secularism than all of the religious killings of history combined. There is an article here about a study of religious freedom that puts secularism at the bottom along with Islam.

Yes, a particular atheist can be more moral than a particular Christian. It would be an error to generalize and say atheism is more moral than Christianity or that atheism is more effective in teaching morality.

Then there is the moral education method:

Secular Teacher: Students, we should not tell a lie.
Students: Why?
Secular Teacher: Because if you get caught, something bad will happen.
Students: What if we don't get caught?
Secular Teacher: Just don't tell any lies - got that?

Christian Teacher: Students, we should not tell a lie.
Students: Why?
Christian Teacher: Because if you get caught, something bad will happen. If you don't get caught, God will still know everything and hold you accountable.
Students: What if God doesn't exist?
Christian Teacher: What if he does exist?

I would rate the secular moral education as being inherently inferior.