“How can you have judgment if you have no faith? How can I trust you with power if you don’t pray?” — Newt Gingrich, Republican Presidential Debate, Las Vegas Navada
This is political pandering of the worst sort, and yet again shows what a tool Newt Gingrich is. There’s nothing quite like demonizing a group to score political points with your base, though I suppose it isn’t much of a surprise coming from Newt. The ironic thing is that the statement is coming from Gingrich, and I doubt that many of his supporters would ask a similar question of him: “Newt, you claim to have faith and pray, yet you’re an adulterer who’s on his third marriage – how can we trust you???”
I have a Christian friend who said the following concerning the statement: “I actually agree with him. If you aren’t following some higher moral code that supersedes that of humans, how could anyone trust you? There has to be some guiding force other than the individual. Otherwise, how could anyone have any idea what you might do in the future? There is no ‘atheist value system’.” Doing most of the typing on my phone, and knowing that Facebook isn’t always the best place for discussions like this to develop (I actually prefer them face-to-face), I thought it might be a good idea to attempt to alleviate some of the concerns raised in greater detail in this forum, as this is a common issue raised by theists of all stripes.
1. If you aren’t following some higher moral code that supersedes that of humans, how could anyone trust you? — The short answer is that there is no higher moral code that supersedes humans, and that all moral codes within the varied religious texts are all of human origin. The obvious objection to this by any Christian is gong to be that the Bible really is the “Word of God.” I would then raise objections to this claim by providing evidence that the Bible cannot be trusted on the grounds of inconsistencies and contradictions within itself, its obvious lack of moral standing (God condoning things like: slavery, genocide, and rape), as well as the scientific evidence that shows the Bible to be wrong on issues of the natural world (the incorrect ordering in the formation of the universe, and our solar system in Genesis for example). The issue is then brought down to a matter of faith in accepting the Bible as an inspired text, with faith as the evidence of things hoped for, and the proof of things not seen. If faith is to be accepted as evidence however, it has to be acceptable evidence for all claims made, and obviously this isn’t the case. Just because one person, or many believe something to be true, it doesn’t necessarily mean that it is true. Ultimately, all people, whether Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, Atheist, Agnostic, or Skeptic, should be judged by their actions and the content of their character, and not by a label.
2. There has to be some guiding force other than the individual. Otherwise, how could anyone have any idea what you might do in the future? – I addressed this issue in my initial comments, but I’ll expand a bit here. Present labels or beliefs are not a good indicator of future behavior. The examples I used specifically were Ted Haggard and the Catholic Pope. Both have a guiding force and religious belief system that they claim guides them, yet Ted Haggard cheated on his wife with a male prostitute and did crystal meth, while the Pope shuffled child molesters around to different churches enabling them to continue to sexually assault children. Newt Gingrich himself has had issues with infidelity and is now on his third marriage, yet he wants the trust of 315,000,000 Americans when he can’t even hold the trust of one woman. Humans are humans and are prone to error, but if someone claims a label as a “person of faith,” and says that somehow gives them the moral high ground, they’re just plain wrong. Examples like these are on the extreme side, but negative behavior as a whole isn’t an exception to the rule among believers. Both believers and non-believers do things that are ethically and morally wrong. The only difference is that a believer prays to seek forgiveness from what they view as the author of their moral system, while the unbeliever does not.
3. “There is no ‘atheist value system’” — Absolutely correct, and the reason is that atheists only share a non-belief in something. That’s why it’s important to judge people by who they are and what they stand for, as opposed to what they don’t believe in. Everyone is an atheist in some respect, even Christians. A Christian is an atheist to the thousands of other gods in human history, while the total atheist just went one god further. As social primates, humans as a whole tend to have similar views of morality based on our evolution in areas like: attachment and bonding, cooperation and mutual aid, sympathy and empathy, direct and indirect reciprocity, altruism and reciprocal altruism, conflict resolution and peacemaking, deception and deception detection, community concern and caring about what others think about you, and awareness of and response to the social rules of the group (Shermer, Michael, The Science of Good and Evil. New York: Times Books. pp. 16). Chimpanzees who we share a common ancestor with, also display morality in similar ways, though their morality isn’t quite as developed as ours. If these behaviors had not developed in human beings, we would not have survived as a species.
In the United States, our society is based upon the rule of law as laid out in the US Constitution — not the Bible, Koran, or a religious or theocratic frame work. Article VI, paragraph 3 of the Constitution states the following: “…no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” As President of the United States, Newt Gingrich would be sworn to uphold and defend the US Constitution (an oath he’s already taken as a congressman), which is an oath he would likely take with his hand on Bible. However, if the candidate Newt Gingrich is already more than happy to not defend, but instead assault the Constitution, how could he ever be trusted as the President?
Theism, the belief in a god or gods, is not in itself a value system anymore than atheism, no belief in a god or gods, is a value system.
The believers must then form a value system by believing the voice inside of their head (or in GWB’s case, gut) is the voice of a god, or that their god once put down his rules in a holy book.
The self-evident fallacy is that all of the holy books contradict one another; the Old Testament, the New Testament, the Torah, the Quran, etc.
Humanism is a code of ethics of atheism. It is based on science and reason rather than dogma and superstition.
Newt (the supposed scholar) needs to read the Euthyphro by Socrates, which is standard required reading for any college freshman studying ethics. It features a dialogue between Plato and Euthyphro that discusses the origin of sound and moral judgement independent of blind allegiance to religious precepts or doctrines derived from the interpretation of cryptic scripture that was allegedly inspired by an omnipotent being.
The discussion revolves around whether or not one can determine right from wrong based on unifying principles rather than simply because “God said so”. If the latter is the only criteria, than morality is arbitrary.
Perhaps this critical lack of understanding explains Newt’s reputation and notoriously long history of profound failures in moral judgement and morally repugnant behavior. Or. more likely, Newt is quite familiar with the Euthyphro dilemma and is just playing to the lowest common denominator of the conservative base. I lost count 20 years ago of how many times I’ve seen this clown blatantly lie to the American public for political gain.
It’s a good thing Newt will most likely never be president, but I sure hope he becomes the Republican nominee!
Actually Newt’s point cuts to the heart of freedom, so the entire essay above is pretty damn stupid. The fact of the matter is that if you believe that your rights are endowed- not by the state-but are inalienablely (look it up) endowed in you by your creator- no state has the right to take them away. However if you don’t believe in a creator- what is the origin of our rights- that means that the origin of our rights as individuals can only come from the state. At that point logically since the state granted them, the state can take them away, and therefore you have no inalienable rights, and eventually history has shown they WILL be taken away. The founders put the line about endowed by the Creator in the constitution for very specific purposes to prevent a totalitarian gov’t. This is basically Obama’s problem. He has shown by his actions he doesn’t really believe in God, so hey that phrase doesn’t make sense- all rights derive from the state, so then trampling on the constitution or the bill of rights is just negotiable- he has the power and it’s all just politics right?
Good luck with that you MORON, and while your at it – atheist – take a LOGIC course. You would know then that atheism is a belief system, AGNOSTIC is not
Newt was absolutely correct, NO ATHEIST can EVER be trusted with power- they will make themselves a GOD unto themselves. 80 million dead in China, 20 million in the Soviet Union, 6 million due to hitler… pol pot etc… all atheists..
try studying history MORON- atheists have killed more people in one DECADE of the last century then all of the religious put together over all of time just for the fundamental reason that they CANNOT believe that individuals have inalienable rights- as Nikita Kruschev objected to the concept of individual rights that was going to be in the UN charter stating that it was a Christian religous idea -you can only speak of rights of persons -plural and those granted by the state- so individual rights were not put in the UN charter. You owe the very fact that you have freedom of the press to write the essay you did and the freedoms to live your life as you do to Christians and Christian ideals- you ignoramous
Kristin, thank you for stopping by to share your view point. I’ll try to address the issues you raised in a manner both courteous and coherent.
“The fact of the matter is that if you believe that your rights are endowed- not by the state-but are inalienablely (look it up) endowed in you by your creator- no state has the right to take them away. However if you don’t believe in a creator- what is the origin of our rights- that means that the origin of our rights as individuals can only come from the state. At that point logically since the state granted them, the state can take them away, and therefore you have no inalienable rights, and eventually history has shown they WILL be taken away.”
What you have created here is known as a false dichotomy or false dilemma, and it is a logical fallacy. In your mind, there are only two possible origins from which rights can come: a creator, or the state. This, however, does not make sense on more than one level, but we’ll address the false dichotomy first. As imperfectly evolved animals, human beings are pretty much on the same foot, and as a result, no human or group of humans has a right to exercise authority over the life, liberty, or property of another human being. You have the right to swing your fist as much as you want, as long as it doesn’t come in contact with my nose. At that point your rights end, and mine begin. It is by nature of our common evolutionary origins that we have our individual rights — a creator is not needed, and neither is a state — hence the false dichotomy. Secondly, these individual rights are universal by nature of our evolutionary history and predate the idea of a state. If two human beings were on a deserted island, these rights would exist without the presence of a state granting them those rights. As imperfectly evolved animals, they are on the same footing with neither having greater rights than the other.
“The founders put the line about endowed by the Creator in the constitution for very specific purposes to prevent a totalitarian gov’t.”
This is not true. Pull out your copy of the US Constitution and find any mention of a god or a creator, and I’ll send you some cash. You won’t find it. The reason you won’t find it is because the line you are speaking of is in the Declaration of Independence, and not in the US Constitution, which is the document that lays out the rule of law for this land. It is a completely secular document, and it takes the time to state that no one will ever be required to take a religious test for public office or trust (see Article 6, paragraph 3).
This is basically Obama’s problem. He has shown by his actions he doesn’t really believe in God, so hey that phrase doesn’t make sense- all rights derive from the state, so then trampling on the constitution or the bill of rights is just negotiable- he has the power and it’s all just politics right?
You seem to be operating under the false assumption that I’m an Obama supporter and a democrat. As someone who is neither, I will say that like all Presidents, Obama has done good things, and he’s done bad things. For the most part, it seems to me that the last 3 years have been a further extension of the Bush Administration. Same foreign policy. Same domestic policy. Same economic policy. It’s the same old song and dance with a new face. Aside from minor differences here and there, I don’t see the hope and change everyone was clamoring about 3 years ago. As far as whether or not Obama is a believer, being I can’t crawl inside the man’s head, I’m just going to have to take his word for it.
“Good luck with that you MORON, and while your at it – atheist – take a LOGIC course. You would know then that atheism is a belief system, AGNOSTIC is not”
I don’t think you’ve thought this through as fully as you may think you have. Allow me to explain… I am both an atheist and an agnostic. I am an atheist because I do not hold a positive belief that there is a god or gods. I’m an agnostic in the sense that because I do not possess perfect knowledge of all things, there could be a god or gods, I just think that it is extremely unlikely. To steal an example of Betrand Russell, I can’t prove that there is not a teapot orbiting between Earth and Mars, but it is highly unlikely, therefore I do not hold a positive belief that there is one. If being an atheist (not having a belief in god) is a “belief system,” is not believing in fairies, unicorns, and leprechauns also a belief system? It’s the same thing for people who like to say that atheists have their own religion of non-belief in a god. If this is the case, then is not collecting stamps a hobby?
“Newt was absolutely correct, NO ATHEIST can EVER be trusted with power- they will make themselves a GOD unto themselves.”
No person, whether believer, atheist, or agnostic can be trusted with power. Lord Acton said, “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” It’s the reason we have the Constitution we have. Thomas Jefferson, who needs no introduction said, “Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear,” also said, “In questions of power, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.”
“80 million dead in China, 20 million in the Soviet Union, 6 million due to hitler… pol pot etc… all atheists”
First and foremost, Hitler was not an atheist. Hitler’s elite SS had “Got Mit Untz” on their belt buckles which is translated “God with us”, or “God on our side”. He heavily utilized the anti-semitism of Martin Luther in his propaganda to push for the eradication of the Jews who had killed Jesus. However, even if he was an atheist like Mao and Pol Pot who were driven by communist ideologies, they did not do their killing in the name of atheism. Saying that them being an atheist is what caused them to kill those people, is like me saying that being a Christian is what made Ted Haggard cheat on his wife with a male prostitue while doing crystal meth. It would be ridiculous for me to make such a statement, just like it is for you to say being an atheist leads to mass murder. It just doesn’t follow. “With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil — that takes religion (Steven Weinberg).”
“You owe the very fact that you have freedom of the press to write the essay you did and the freedoms to live your life as you do to Christians and Christian ideals- you ignoramous”
Are you at all familiar with Christian history? Do you have any idea how many people the church burned at the stake for espousing doctrine, or just being accused of espousing doctrine contrary to the official position of the church? Where in the Bible do you see freedom of the press, or freedom of thought? Did the Apostle Paul support such ideas, or did he command such people to be cast out from the church? Please direct me to the portions of scripture that I have to thank for the rights afforded to me under the 1st Amendment.
Kristin, I hope you will take the time to consider the points I’ve made above, and perhaps see things in a different light than what you have seen them before. I do appreciate you stopping by to share your thoughts, even though I disagree on almost every level. It is only through open inquiry and investigation that we ultimately can come to the truth.
kristin,
This is an ignorant hate blog that doesn’t listen to reason. you wasted your time.
Eric, If my rebuttals are unreasonable, please point out the error in my arguments.
good discussion on both side Think Newt has had some very good and interesting debate comments on faith, God and prayer and I’m glad they have stimulated discussion
Thanks for the kind words, TSM. But I respectfully disagree that Newt had some “good” comments on faith. I think Newt is thoroughly disingenuous and pandering to those sanctimonious individuals who claim to uphold Christian values, yet readily and enthusiastically support unjust wars, lackadaisical executions of the potentially innocent who were not afforded due process, apathy and disdain for the less fortunate and infirmed, unrestrained greed, and vitriolic intolerance towards those who do not hold the same beliefs as they do. Regarding the distinction between Obama and his predecessor, I feel it is naive and simplistic to state that the Obama Administration’s policies have been a mere extension of the Bush Administration’s policies. To make a serious commentary on the subject, one must acknowledge that Obama is not able to unilaterally implement change. He must work in conjunction with a cooperative Congress in order to implement that change Americans indicated via the ballot box that they were hoping for. The lack of change can more aptly be attributed to an obstructionist Congress despite Omama’s best efforts.
I do not believe that the son of an omnipotent being was born to a divinely impregnated virgin two thousand some odd years ago, but the character in the book of fiction did express some really admirable utilitarian ideals. The world would be a better place if Christians actually lived their lives in accordance with them.
Dan, Are you addressing this to me? I never said that Newt had good comments on faith. I agree wholeheartedly with you that it is insincere and pandering so far as I can tell.
As far as Obama being an extension of the Bush Administration, it was not my intention to draw a direct line connecting the two, but merely to point out that things in politics seldom change, despite who happens to be in office. In my view, the president is little more than a secretary for the congress. Ultimately, I say that they should be the ones that accept most of the responsibility when things go bad. The president just happens to be a lone figure that everyone can point at, when he’s really just the one signing off on what the congress has done. Of course, when a president sends troops without an official declaration of war from the congress, he’s on his own.
1. An atheist is a person who is mad at God because, although ‘He does not exist’ [according to the atheist] He nevertheless still has the audacity to pretend that He exists. Conceded … this is enough to drive just about any atheist crazy and suck him/her into Darwinism forever. 2. A Darwinist is a person who is trying to sell you the Emperor’s Clothes, while he himself had never ever seen it before in his life. 3. Even devils [demons] have commonsense enough to know there is a God, and surely must look upon atheists as a highly weird and unorthodox species.
Piet, could you please show me a demon, so I can discuss his belief in God with him?
Alan Dershowitz has a discussion on the origin of rights in his book, “Shouting Fire.” He dismisses the idea that “rights” come from God in less than a page. He makes the point that there is no consensus on what God says, therefore, we don’t know what He says.