The Concept Of Being "God Fearing"

[Stavros]

Reward and punishment is how we train our pets. I owe no debt to religion at all. Like the vast majority of people on this planet, I follow the universal moral code that tells me to treat everyone as if they were me. Like people since prehistory (regardless of religious bent), I do this without a single thought about what some self proclaimed mage, sage, seer, king, bureaucrat, "leader", preacher, writer, editor, compiler, philosopher, or any other hack has to say about it. Personally, I think the code is innate, but that's a different argument. Religion & all other forms of autocratic rule just slow the pace of human social progress by forcing their own rules to the top of the priority list, while confounding or ignoring the basic moral code.

KIS,S

I appreciate the meat in your post, but must admit I feel your opening sentence -Reward and punishment is how we train our pets- trivializes an important dynamic in human relations and not least because you later imply that this arrangement of moral judgement is innate in all humans. I think we can do better than that, and see my other post for an additional argument.

[Stavros]

There is little, if anything, I would take issue with in your latest post.

I might imagine the transition to politically organized societies may have been less abrupt then Hobbes describes, but I agree our moral narrative is of human origin. I can understand how the fear of death inspires the kind of denial of its existence that most religions perpetuate in the guise of everlasting souls, or perpetual reincarnation. I also understand how organized worship and its ritual provides a sense of community and provides ritualized experiences around which communities can bond.

I do not think religious practice is the only thing around which such bonds can be formed, but perhaps because of their age, the roots of these practices sweep broadly through the foundations of most societies. One cannot birth, marry, suffer illness, celebrate good fortune or sit down to a family meal without someone invoking the blessing of one god, goddess or another through the ritual of prayer or sacrifice.

We may differ on the weight one should grant to age when evaluating the truth or falsity of a proposition, but I do realize (I think) that you are less concerned with the truth of a justification given for an enduring practice than with the value of the practice itself. There are many arenas.

I was brought up within a Christian tradition to which my parents and siblings still subscribe. Even though I am openly atheistic, I still bow my head at family meals, weddings, baptisms and funerals because the world isn’t about me or my beliefs. People deal and grow however they are able. In this sense I respect these practices; and in this sense they are forced upon me.

I don't think this debate needs to delve too deeply into our personal situations, I would prefer to debate the broader issue which is the relationship between organized religion and society, not least because at the present juncture there is such a terribly real connection between organized religion and violence and intolerance.

Consider that 100 years ago, it was secular regimes that were attacking religious communities and with substantially greater violence than we have seen since 9/11. In the dying days of the Ottoman Empire, millions of Christian Armenians and Greek Orthodox were either expelled from Anatolia or slaughtered by the Nationalist zealots of an emerging Turkish state which went on to abolish religious education in schools and promote atheism as a component of the secular state. As the Russian autocracy collapsed, it too led to an orgy of violence in which religious communities, notably the Jews and Christians were targeted by the Bolsheviks, just as a consolidation of Communist rule involved the demolition of churches across the USSR. A violent anti-clerical movement was a central feature of the Republic in Spain in the 1930s, just as the suppression of religion in China in the 1940s was extended in the 1950s to Tibet, while atheism became a key feature of the autocracy in Albania while the Catholic church was viewed with deep suspicion in Eastern European countries like Poland.

It may be that religion, if it has been resurgent as an organized force, as it has been in Poland (my earlier post drew attention to this phenomenon in Nigeria, Uganda and Russia), has found a new space in which to grow because of the failures of previous secular regimes to provide jobs, to cleanse the state of corruption, even to provide the 'people' with a sense of shared entitlement and belonging. This is a key theme in a short but fascinating book by Michael Walzer, The Paradox of Liberation (Yale University Press, 2015) in which Walzer tries to understand how three states emerged from a 'national liberation' struggle to erect secular/socialist/humanitarian governments, only to be overtaken decades later by religious movements that appear to contradict what the founders of the state intended -the examples being Israel, Algeria and India.

It has been argued for some years now that political Islam grew in the Middle East as a response to the failures of Arab liberalism, socialism and nationalism, yet it is clear that if there has been a resurgence of Islam, it has been a fractured attempt to re-mould the state and on present evidence is a dismal failure. Even in the case of Saudi Arabia which has now lasted for the best part of a century, the Royal Family is still detested in the Hejaz and in the east, while the export of its horrible creed across the world has alienated Muslims from each other as much as the societies in which they live.
We have also seen how a militant Christianity in the USA in recent times may have emerged as a religious response to the fear of Communism, while modernization in the form of film, tv and now social media excited the 'moral majority' to campaign politically for reactionary policies, and on issues such as abortion -if not divorce and homosexuality- has earned some success, with the additional point that Presidential candidates appear to be obliged to make public their religious views as if it were not possible to be selected, let alone elected, if one does not proclaim a belief in the Christian God.

But tolerance to have any meaning must work both ways, and what I find dispiriting in these times, is an intolerance on the part of those who dismiss religion out of hand as a concoction of fables about a sky-fairy and some non-existent after-life, and on the other side an organized group who not only believe they are in exclusive possession of the truth, but also claim religious justification when they choose to murder. My generation inherited a world in which we were determined that mass murder -any murder- would no longer be justified for reasons of 'race' religion sexuality or ideology, and it appears we have failed, either because it is in human nature to be bad, or because bad things happen when we create the permissive environment in which it becomes possible to behave badly with impunity, even if there are occasional moments of hope, such as the conviction of Radovan Karadzic.

What worries me most is this 'permissive environment' in which the state allows bad things to happen, because once the law is ignored on one aspect of social relations, it encourages law-breaking elsewhere, and that is the road to perdition.

[trish]

I don't think this debate needs to delve too deeply into our personal situations, I would prefer to debate the broader issue which is the relationship between organized religion and society, not least because at the present juncture there is such a terribly real connection between organized religion and violence and intolerance.

Consider that 100 years ago, it was secular regimes that were attacking religious communities and with substantially greater violence than we have seen since 9/11. In the dying days of the Ottoman Empire, millions of Christian Armenians and Greek Orthodox were either expelled from Anatolia or slaughtered by the Nationalist zealots of an emerging Turkish state which went on to abolish religious education in schools and promote atheism as a component of the secular state. As the Russian autocracy collapsed, it too led to an orgy of violence in which religious communities, notably the Jews and Christians were targeted by the Bolsheviks, just as a consolidation of Communist rule involved the demolition of churches across the USSR. A violent anti-clerical movement was a central feature of the Republic in Spain in the 1930s, just as the suppression of religion in China in the 1940s was extended in the 1950s to Tibet, while atheism became a key feature of the autocracy in Albania while the Catholic church was viewed with deep suspicion in Eastern European countries like Poland.

It may be that religion, if it has been resurgent as an organized force, as it has been in Poland (my earlier post drew attention to this phenomenon in Nigeria, Uganda and Russia), has found a new space in which to grow because of the failures of previous secular regimes to provide jobs, to cleanse the state of corruption, even to provide the 'people' with a sense of shared entitlement and belonging. This is a key theme in a short but fascinating book by Michael Walzer, The Paradox of Liberation (Yale University Press, 2015) in which Walzer tries to understand how three states emerged from a 'national liberation' struggle to erect secular/socialist/humanitarian governments, only to be overtaken decades later by religious movements that appear to contradict what the founders of the state intended -the examples being Israel, Algeria and India.

It has been argued for some years now that political Islam grew in the Middle East as a response to the failures of Arab liberalism, socialism and nationalism, yet it is clear that if there has been a resurgence of Islam, it has been a fractured attempt to re-mould the state and on present evidence is a dismal failure. Even in the case of Saudi Arabia which has now lasted for the best part of a century, the Royal Family is still detested in the Hejaz and in the east, while the export of its horrible creed across the world has alienated Muslims from each other as much as the societies in which they live.
We have also seen how a militant Christianity in the USA in recent times may have emerged as a religious response to the fear of Communism, while modernization in the form of film, tv and now social media excited the 'moral majority' to campaign politically for reactionary policies, and on issues such as abortion -if not divorce and homosexuality- has earned some success, with the additional point that Presidential candidates appear to be obliged to make public their religious views as if it were not possible to be selected, let alone elected, if one does not proclaim a belief in the Christian God.

But tolerance to have any meaning must work both ways, and what I find dispiriting in these times, is an intolerance on the part of those who dismiss religion out of hand as a concoction of fables about a sky-fairy and some non-existent after-life, and on the other side an organized group who not only believe they are in exclusive possession of the truth, but also claim religious justification when they choose to murder. My generation inherited a world in which we were determined that mass murder -any murder- would no longer be justified for reasons of 'race' religion sexuality or ideology, and it appears we have failed, either because it is in human nature to be bad, or because bad things happen when we create the permissive environment in which it becomes possible to behave badly with impunity, even if there are occasional moments of hope, such as the conviction of Radovan Karadzic.

What worries me most is this 'permissive environment' in which the state allows bad things to happen, because once the law is ignored on one aspect of social relations, it encourages law-breaking elsewhere, and that is the road to perdition.

You’re the historian and what you say about the reasons for the resurgence of religion in regions where there had been violent attempts to eradicate it ring true. Not only the violence, but the economic and political failures of secular, nationalist regimes have left a vacuum that religion and tribalism rushed back in to fill. I’ll be sure to check out Michael Walzer’s book, thanks for the reference.

Not being a historian myself, I don’t have much to add to the general argument. As a citizen of the U.S. I might comment that McCarthyism may have made some contribution to the stranglehold evangelicalism has had and still has on American politics, but I don’t really see it as a major contribution. My opinion is that this strange relationship Americans have with religion is much older than the fear of Godless communism. Consider the Puritans, the sermons of Jonathan Edwards, the Calvinist movement, the Mormon movement, the Bible Belt, the early traveling evangelists who later took over huge swaths of radio bandwidth, the hoopla over the Scopes Trial etc. It was all already there for McCarthy to exploit. Presidential candidates have always had to flout not just their Christianity but their Protestantism. Kennedy’s Catholicism was an issue when he ran. Only recently is organized religion in America somewhat on the wane (at least among young people) and concomitant with that we find tolerance of various sexual orientations and identifications among young people. Even Bernie Sanders’ nod to Judaism hasn’t got a lot of press - yet.

There is a part of religion that is indeed a concoction of sky-fairy fables that promise eternal bliss and threaten eternal pain. Unfortunately, at least here in the U.S., these parts are more important than the actual practice of going to Church, communing with the congregation in worship, serving to help the poor in one’s community etc. Every time a city fails to pass an anti-homosexuality law, or a school board throws out an attempt to establish a creationist biology curriculum, Pat Robertson or some other Evangelical preacher warns that God will punish us. In this decade Christian ministers have told us that various hurricanes, tornados and plagues were divine retribution. This part of religion would be easy to dismiss, if it weren’t so galling...but dismiss it I do.

There is a part of religion I don’t dismiss: the practices that tie people together (which I touched upon in my prior post). If only religious practitioners could separate the practices that bind people to one another from the silly and inane beliefs that dissuade, perpetuate fear, resentment and hatred.

Reciprocally, atheists could do what? It’s difficult to be tolerant of the beliefs we are urged to accept as literal truths, when as literal claims they’re false. We could try, perhaps, to argue the merits of those claims as metaphors; but not being believers, that’s not really our job: it’s a job for the clergy. We can’t really embrace the practices of religion (though I have explained in the last post how I have done so in various personal setting) because they are not our practices. But we can be tolerant of those practices; and I think that by and large most atheists are tolerant of the practices - if not the fables - of the religious communities in which they find themselves. We say "Happy Holidays" we paint Easter Eggs with our children. We even sometimes say, "Bless you" when somebody sneezes.

[nitron]

What does God fearing mean if you are a Buddhist, Jane, Hindu, or Taoist ? Perhaps there is a type of Karma rooted in a more subtle patchwork, that could be applied as retribution and Justice...Mirroring the "God fearing", old Testament equivalent to the eastern non monotheistic stuff.

[hippifried]

What does God fearing mean if you are a Buddhist, Jane, Hindu, or Taoist ? Perhaps there is a type of Karma rooted in a more subtle patchwork, that could be applied as retribution and Justice...Mirroring the "God fearing", old Testament equivalent to the eastern non monotheistic stuff.

Nothing. It doesn't have much meaning to Jews or Catholics or Muslims either. What we see as terror of a vengeful deity is the product of Protestant reformation.

[martin48]

We seem to have stepped into the area of morality. “God is dead, so all hell breaks lose”

"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hopes of reward after death."
Albert Einstein


Regardless of where you believe morals innately come from, the idea that you behave in a good way to either achieve a celestial reward or to avoid eternal suffering is grossly immoral. Not to mention the fact that the Bible is hardly the “good book” it claims to be. It’s full of genocide, sacrifice, murder, mayhem, slavery, rape, incest, not taking accountability for your own shortcomings and much, much more. This is supposedly the holy word of god, and it’s fundamentally evil.
I don’t need to read a 2-3 thousand year old book to tell me that it’s wrong to kill someone. I don’t need a book to tell me that cheating on my spouse is not a good thing. Just because I’m an atheist doesn’t mean that I go out raping, pillaging and killing people because I have no morals without the Bible. The thought is ridiculous to an extreme, but it’s unfortunately not that uncommon.
A lot of believers find it impossible to accept that morality is something innate in the human species and that it doesn’t exist because of a Bronze Age set of rules says so. The fact of the matter is that many of the “10 Commandments” existed long before the Jewish people did, and they’re hardly unique to the Jews. In fact, early records put some of the 10 commandments hundreds of years before the Jews were around. They’re simply basic human principles.
You don’t have to think too hard to understand the principles for an overall morality. You see evidence of it in the animal kingdom, so it’s not something that is strictly exclusive to human beings. Chimpanzees, Gorillas, Wolves, Dolphins, Whales and other high-brained animals all exhibit some forms of societal morals, and it’s for the same reason that humans do. As humans evolved, they recognized that survival was much more likely if they came together as groups. In order to function as a group, certain things had to be understood. Basic human morality stems from the idea of avoiding harm and collectively focuses on the good of the group instead of the will of an individual. The idea of individual property that belonged to one specific person didn’t evolve until much, much later. The tribe communally owned things and shared them as needed with others. They didn’t kill each other because they depended on each other for their very lives. The infant mortality rate was so high in some areas that they avoided intentionally killing children. It’s the foundation of human morality completely separated from the concept of an overpowering god. God simply did not create human morality – humans created religious morality – and ironically the laws attributed to god tended to follow the customs that were already in practice by the people who dictated them, and they demonized the behavior of that particular culture’s territorial enemies.


BTW --- I still feel it odd to have these discussions on a porn site. Where's the morality in that?

[buttslinger]

I was kind of perplexed when first Trish then Stavros kind of poo pooed Hippifried's morals clause.
Then it dawned on me that when it comes to morals, Stavros and Trish have found themselves on the WRONG side of the moral fence!! I honestly doubt whether most people here have any idea what that's like. How many of us are UNWELCOME in Church?????????
I must say, though, despite their sick perverted needs and deeds they do talk good, and make sense sometimes.

[trish]

I was kind of perplexed when first Trish then Stavros kind of poo pooed Hippifried's morals clause.
Then it dawned on me that when it comes to morals, Stavros and Trish have found themselves on the WRONG side of the moral fence!! I honestly doubt whether most people here have any idea what that's like. How many of us are UNWELCOME in Church?????????
I must say, though, despite their sick perverted needs and deeds they do talk good, and make sense sometimes.

I don't recall 'poo pooing' (nor when I look back over the last few pages can I find where I 'poo pooed') Hippiefried's 'moral clause' (by which I assume you mean the 'Golden Rule'). I simply made no comment directly relating to it, basically because 1) I have no opinion on whether the Golden Rule is innate or not and 2) that the Golden Rule is good moral advice is so obvious no comment is required.

As to what you mean by the "WRONG side of the moral fence" you'll have to elaborate.

[martin48]

"WRONG side of the moral fence"

Just trying to get this site back to its roots

[trish]

"WRONG side of the moral fence"

Just trying to get this site back to its roots

nice root