After a several-month hiatus, Katherine Kersten’s lightning rod-conservatism is back at the Star Tribune, and her edgy, faith-tinged opinion hasn’t failed to disappoint those looking for controversy.
Her Sunday-only column this week took aim at atheism and what she perceives as its detrimental impact on society. She argues that without faith in God, people have no basis to form a moral framework. As a society we are embracing atheism, she writes, “[b]ut before we do, we would be wise to consider the potential consequences.”
Such as? Bloodshed. “The French Revolution, Hitler’s Germany, Stalin’s Soviet Union — all sought to replace Judeo-Christian ethics with reason, and ended in massive bloodletting,” she wrote. “In ancient Rome, disabled babies were left on hilltops to die.”
Her column sparked outcry from many atheists who say that faith in a Judeo-Christian God does not form the basis for people’s compassion, sense of equality, ethics and morals. People do.
Craig A. James, author of The Evolution of Religion, responded to Kersten’s column on his blog, The Religion Virus:
Her argument presupposes that God exists and gave us our morality, and presupposes that without God there will be no morality. But if you drop the presupposition, that is, assume God does not exist, then the Bible itself proves that Kersten is wrong! The Bible (and many other supposedly God-inspired writings) is full of all sorts of great moral lessons (and some terrible ones, too), and since these were written by men and women, not God, it proves that humans can be moral without divine guidance.
George Francis Kane, public relations officer for the Minnesota Atheists, said that equality is inherently a secular concept:
Atheists base their moral judgments on the actual effects of actions on peoples’ lives, rather than principles religion claims to know with certainty. The religious conception of equality that Kersten touts is equality before the god of the Bible, and is not realized until the afterlife. Equality before the law is a secular concept that could only arise when the legitimacy of government is based in the consent of the governed, rather than divine election. Atheists demonstrate compassion no less than that of Christians, but based upon quality of life rather than unbending absolutes.
PZ Myers, a Minnesota biology professor and recent winner of the Humanist of the Year Award, responded to Kersten on his blog Pharyngula:
I always like how these doctrinaire promoters of “Judeo-Christianity” primly declare that they have such moral authority, when their faith has such a poor track record of promoting morality. Christians have advocated slavery, have murdered people for the awful crime of miscegenation, have decreed that people who don’t have the kind of sex they prefer are second-class citizens. Christians are thieves, murderers, rapists, and jay-walkers; it seems that having a belief in a transcendent authority actually doesn’t equate to being necessarily law-abiding and ethical or even, shocking as that may be, immune from the temptations of their natures.













17 Comments »
Comment posted June 9, 2009 @ 5:02 pm
I noticed Kersten wasn’t so much arguing that God exists as that he should exist. It seems the logical conclusion isn’t that God is real, but that we should pretend he is. Then again, since clearly most people behave in moral ways, and if there are no gods, then morality must have a non-divine origin. I think she preferred misrepresenting what “new atheists” say than in seeing the real question beyond her faith.
Comment posted June 9, 2009 @ 9:49 pm
The Atheist say’s we need stop signs at intersections to stop, Kersten say’s people know to stop at an intersection and we only have to believe in the stop sign. So if Jezuzz is behind the wheel, how long will it take both to reach their destinations?
We are a people of different faiths, but we are one. Which faith conquers the other is not the question; rather, the question is whether Christianity stands or falls…. We tolerate no one in our ranks who attacks the ideas of Christianity… in fact our movement is Christian. We are filled with a desire for Catholics and Protestants to discover one another in the deep distress of our own people.
-Adolf Hitler, in a speech in Passau, 27 October 1928, Bundesarchiv Berlin-Zehlendorf, [cited from Richard Steigmann-Gall's The Holy Reich]
Comment posted June 10, 2009 @ 7:42 am
I love PZ Myers. LOVE him. Not much more to say.
Comment posted June 10, 2009 @ 8:49 am
The argument appears to be misunderstood.
First let us note that morals refers to a description of the mores and merely describe what is.
Ethics is in reference to the ethos and prescribes what should be.
Atheists can make any claim that they want about anything, that is not the issue. The issue is that it must be recognized that they are merely expressing personal preferences in the form of assertions and oft expressed as arguments from outrage, arguments from ridicule, arguments for embarrassment, etc.
If there is no God then everyone is doing just that and fittest will win.
What the theist does, let us not refer to the Judeo-Christian theology, is provide an ultimate ethos, a premise, a basis. Grounded in God’s very triune (relational) nature and character. This is not, as PZ Myers appears to misunderstand, a guarantee against wrongdoing. Then again, PZ Myers being an atheist activist can only see one side of the picture and utterly disregards the millions of ethical lives lived for millennia according to the Judeo-Christian ethos.
This is as fallacious, biased and propagandist as the comment above quotes Hitler in 1928 when he was attempting to gain a following. Please see the following URL to understand just how unscholarly it is to quote someone like Hitler one time and early in his career as he was the ultimate opportunist:
http://atheismisdead.blogspot.com/2009/04/from-zeitgeist-to-poltergeist-part-3-of.html
Moreover, presupposing Judeo-Christian theology the atheist is not free from the guiding hand of God who has written His law in our hearts.
Comment posted June 10, 2009 @ 11:06 am
“Moreover, presupposing Judeo-Christian theology the atheist is not free from the guiding hand of God who has written His law in our hearts.”
Given the decidedly inhumane behavior of professed Christian GW Bush, authorizing repeated torture of a captured enemy, it might have been better if the Guiding Hand wrote that law in our brains, where it could control our actions, rather than in the heart, where it did no apparent good.
I often wonder why people worship a God who lets such nasty stuff go on in the world. But that’s me.
I wonder how many converts Ms Kersten … and we who can’t resist the bait …. have made with our appeals of faith and logic? Reminds me of abortion …. probably can fit everyone who hasn’t made up their mind on the issue in an old-style Superman phone booth, and have enough room for the Matrix cast still
Comment posted June 10, 2009 @ 11:46 am
Mill,
I am not sure that it is viable to assert that circa 5 millennia of Judeo-Christian tradition are to be judged by GWB’s actions?
Also, God chose not to create automatons since true love requires choice.
We have a conscience as a guide and must exercise our minds in the application.
If God were to disallow the nasty stuff that goes on in the world would that mean that He would make it so that you could not complain about Him. Would it mean that He would “control our actions” sans free will? Would it mean that He would also urge you personally to not do some of the thing that you do?
Perhaps He should have created a perfect world but also allow for the free will that would make that world meaningful. Perhaps we would choose to do evil things. Perhaps He could condemn the evil while also providing a way of forgiveness. Perhaps He should come to Earth as a human and go what we go through; see how He likes it. Perhaps we could have a go at Him and belittle Him, curse Him, spit on Him, beat Him and murder Him. Perhaps He would eventually restore the perfect world—this is the Bible’s message.
Atheism actually manages to make evil even worse by 1) guaranteeing that it cannot be ultimately abolished 2) cannot be ultimately redeemed 3) it has not greater meaning or purpose.
Furthermore, atheism makes it so that evil is only for the benefit of the evil doer since they get to enjoy their evil deeds and if they are not caught they simply get away with it.
The fact of evil in the world is one of the very best reasons for rejecting atheism.
Comment posted June 10, 2009 @ 12:23 pm
Mariano,
George Bush is just a symptom of the greater disease, there have been others before him (many, MANY others) and there will be many after him. Religion is fundamentally dangerous because it was developed, largely, in a world that no longer exists, and because it almost universally insists on dehumanizing or devaluing other human beings who are not adherents.
I do not need any other meaning or purpose than doing everything I can to prevent the suffering of my fellow human beings, regardless of their color, ethnicity, sexual preferences, etc. I can be moral on my own.
What’s more, I find the concept of forgiveness from a god to be highly disturbing, as it seems to allow for people to harm others or do bad things, just as long as they check back in with their imaginary friend to say, “My bad!” What the hell is that?
And how the fuck does religion guarantee that evil cannot ultimately be abolished? Didn’t you just blather on, in the preceding paragraphs, about how god allows evil because that just shows he is giving people free will? That sounds an awful lot like he has no impetus to stop evil, and thus it will not be abolished. Religion often seems to be the best and most used cloak under which evil can hide and claim to be untouchable and unquestionable.
I don’t know why I’m even arguing with you. You religious people can triangulate around anything and make up all the bullshit you want, and just stamp it with “god says” because you are arrogant enough to assume that, if there is a god, you know what or who it is and what it thinks.
Any which way you slice it, religion is the delusion most likely to cause the end of the world.
Comment posted June 10, 2009 @ 1:09 pm
What a silly argument. Face the cold, hard facts of life on this planet Earth: God is not real. We’re born, we live and we die. There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. There is only our natural world(quite a wonderful place, actually). Religion is myth and superstition. It hardens hearts and enslaves minds. Be good for goodness’ sake and leave the world a better place for your children….because this really is all there is.
Comment posted June 10, 2009 @ 1:29 pm
You want fundamentalism: just read the comment made by the atheists in the article and the comments.
Comment posted June 10, 2009 @ 2:13 pm
It seems that for Christians morality is based on the word of God. They do not understand, and frequently ask, how can people be moral without absolute adherence to a
God given system of beliefs found in their Bible?
It seems everyone, Christians and non-believers alike, knows the Bible didn’t suddenly drop from the sky with God’s own autograph attached. We do accept that men wrote the Bible, both the old and the new Testaments. Don’t we?
Upon what truths did these men rely when writing these documents?
I submit there were two sources of information upon which the scriptures were written.
One is the subjective experience of those who claimed to witness miracles. Take for example the story where Jesus is supposed to have fed a large crowd of people with only a few fish and loaves of bread. An alternate explanation could be that the people themselves had carried their own fish and bread with them. The inspiring speech of Jesus motivated them to share what they had with the crowd. An observer may have experienced the sudden appearance of enough fish and bread to feed the crowd as a miracle and reported it in this way. Jesus performed miracles; therefore Jesus is God.
The story may well have a good moral message, but it is simply not necessary to attribute a miracle to Jesus and claim morals came from God. Men observed the happening, and men wrote the Bible, period.
Subjective experiences of people are still reported today. There are those who insist they have seen ghosts, those who insist they have been abducted by aliens, and those, like Joseph Smith who insisted that he had received tablets directly from God. Hoax? Delusion? Miracle? You decide.
Many have insisted their experiences are accurate and true. Most of these claims have been debunked, and some were proven to be hoaxes.
Then there those who claim to have received revelations directly from God.
Let’s look at a scientific experiment done by Newberg and D’Aquili. The experiment was designed to measure brain activity during the meditation of monks, and the praying of nuns. What they discovered is that during intense concentration essentially what happens is the area of the brain that normally orients the person in the real world goes AWOL. I mean it shuts down. I personally think it’s amazing what humans can do with and to their own brains. Perhaps this is the pheromone that accounts for revelations. These revelations, I’m thinking St. Paul, are what the men who wrote the Bible wrote into the scriptures.
Then of course, as we all know, the Bible underwent a tedious editing process, by men, and several times. Hence there are different versions of the Holy Book.
OK, now back to the original question about where do morals come from.
If you accept the Bible as the source of our morals, and you accept that men wrote the bible, it seems logical that you would accept that our morals came from men whose stories were based on subjective experiences and so called revelations from God. The only logical conclusion I can think of is that since men wrote the Bible, the morals it teaches come from men.
I use the word men here as opposed to people because men were pretty much in charge of our societies and thus our morals during the time of those writings in the Bible. Women were written about, as was Ruth in the old Testament, but I highly doubt they did the writing, or the editing.
Comment posted June 10, 2009 @ 11:37 pm
The good book says…
When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl’s owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)
Comment posted June 10, 2009 @ 11:38 pm
When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)
Comment posted June 10, 2009 @ 11:44 pm
Don’t associate with non-Christians. Don’t receive them into your house or even exchange greeting with them. 2 John 1:10
Shun those who disagree with your religious views. Romans 16:17
Paul, knowing that their faith would crumble if subjected to free and critical inquiry, tells his followers to avoid philosophy. Colossians 2:8
Comment posted June 12, 2009 @ 11:02 am
Hey Mariano,
Way to not answer any of the assertions put forth. You are a great representative of religious people.
Pingback posted June 14, 2009 @ 9:15 am
[...] http://minnesotaindependent.com/36583/kerstens-back-at-the-strib-and-riling-up-atheists [...]
Comment posted June 18, 2009 @ 1:04 pm
so if there is no heaven and hell i have no reason to be considerate of any form of life on this planet? so i need a reason other then that connection a healthy human would make with other forms of life? it sounds like christians have decided that brutality is a necessity. without it, according to their preachings, we would all treat each other with hatred in our hearts. so we have capital punishment, wars and all those other niceties that have been going on before and after christianity. i’ll try something else, other then religion, thank you.
Comment posted July 12, 2009 @ 1:32 am
If no one told me there was a God , I would not know that one existed. We seem to be the only creature that has to create one. We, the violent killer monkey.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
Leave a comment