Maher is right about religion: Orwellian ridiculousness of Jesus, and the truth about moral progress

[xchrom]

http://www.salon.com/2015/01/18/bill_maher_is_right_about_religion_the_orwellian_ridiculousness_of_jesus_and_the_truth_about_moral_progress/



Most people believe that moral progress has primarily been due to the guiding light of religious teachings, the activities of spiritual leaders, and the power of faith-based initiatives. In “The Moral Arc” I argue that this is not the case, and that most moral progress is the result of science, reason, and secular values developed during the Enlightenment. Once moral progress in a particular area is underway, most religions eventually get on board—as in the abolition of slavery in the 19th century, women’s rights in the 20th century, and gay rights in the 21st century—but this often happens after a shamefully protracted lag time. Why?

The rules that were dreamt up and enshrined by the various religions over the millennia did not have as their goal the expansion of the moral sphere to include other sentient beings. Moses did not come down from the mountain with a detailed list of the ways in which the Israelites could make life better for the Moabites, the Edomites, the Midianites, or for any other tribe of people that happened not to be them. One justification for this constricted sphere can be found in the Old Testament injunction to “Love thy neighbor,” who at that time was one’s immediate kin and kind, which was admittedly an evolutionary stratagem appropriate for the time. It would be suicidal to love thy neighbor as thyself when thy neighbor would like nothing better than to exterminate you, which was often the case for the Bronze Age peoples of the Old Testament. What good would have come of the Israelites loving, for example, the Midianites as themselves? The results would have been catastrophic given that the Midianites were allied with the Moabites in their desire to see the Israelites wiped off the face of the earth.

Today, of course, most Jews, Christians, and Muslims believe that moral principles are universal and apply to everyone, but this is because they have inculcated into their moral thinking the modern Enlightenment goal of broadening and redefining the parameters of moral consideration. But by their nature the world’s religions are tribal and xenophobic, serving to regulate moral rules within the community but not seeking to embrace humanity outside their circle. Religion, by definition, forms an identity of those like us, in sharp distinction from those not us, those heathens, those unbelievers. Most religions were pulled into the modern Enlightenment with their fingernails dug into the past. Change in religious beliefs and practices, when it happens at all, is slow and cumbersome, and it is almost always in response to the church or its leaders facing outside political or cultural forces.

The history of Mormonism is a case in point. In the 1830s the church’s founder, Joseph Smith, received a revelation from God to enact what he euphemistically called “celestial marriage,” more accurately described as “plural marriage”—the rest of the world calls it polygamy—just about the time he found a new love interest while married to another woman. Once Smith caught the Solomonic fever for multiple wives (King Solomon had 700), he couldn’t stop himself or his brethren from spreading their seed, along with the practice, which in 1852 was codified into Mormon law through its sacred “Doctrines and Covenants.” Until 1890, that is, when the people of Utah—desirous for their territory to become a state in the union—were told by the United States federal government that polygamy would not be tolerated.

[Jim__]

1. Really? An article on moral progress by Michael Shermer?

From a Patheos article on Shermer:

Earlier this month, I wrote about the serious allegations of sexual harassment and sexual assault made against skeptic “thought leader” Michael Shermer by three women, who agreed to be named in an article published by Buzzfeed. That article, as you’d expect, has provoked an enormous amount of controversy and outrage.

But what I find more surprising is who isn’t discussing it. Some prominent individuals in the atheist and skeptical community are either minimizing this story, treating the allegations as if they were no big deal, or are trying to make the whole thing go away, acting as if the allegations never happened or shouldn’t be mentioned. It’s as if they’re trying to build a protective wall of silence around Michael Shermer.

[chervilant]

3. Misogyny is a pernicious reality,

with roots in the patriarchy, the social construct that relegates all women to second-class citizenry.

From the article:

For the past several years, Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, and online forums have become hostile places for women who identify as feminists or express concern about widely circulated tales of sexism in the movement. Some women say they are now harassed or mocked at conventions, and the online attacks — which include Jew-baiting, threats of anal rape, and other pleasantries — are so vicious that two activists I spoke with have been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder. One of these women has been bedridden for two years.

This is true here on DU as well, where a group of virulently sexist and misogynistic individuals seems always at the ready to denigrate anyone who dares to challenge their hurtful, hateful posts. Those of us who openly identify as radical feminists are vulnerable to unimaginably vile responses from these pitiable individuals. For example, I got an email from one angry misogynist who stated that he wanted to rip my guts out and strangle me with them.

So, it's not surprising to me that Shermer has been tagged. Just a whiff of these allegations will safeguard a lot of women.

[cbayer]

2. I honestly think people are recommending the headline here and not reading the article.

His very first line is a false premise, imo. The rest of the article is so dense as to be almost unreadable.

He never even mentions Maher, even though he is in the title and his photo is featured. His Orwellian reference is about Jesus and thought crimes, for which he uses one single example of "lusting in your heart". Most telling is that he references a piece of scripture that has absolutely nothing to do with what he is talking about:

Matthew 9:28-29New International Version (NIV)

28 When he had gone indoors, the blind men came to him, and he asked them, “Do you believe that I am able to do this?”

“Yes, Lord,” they replied.

29 Then he touched their eyes and said, “According to your faith let it be done to you”;

Finally, as noted above, I think Shermer taking the moral high ground is pretty hypocritical in light of his history of bad behavior with women.

What did you think about it xchrom?

[Prophet 451]

4. Maher proselytizing atheism is nothing new

It could just be that I'm only noticing it after a few years of watching his show but Maher seems to have three or four topics (vegetarianism, pot, the evils of religion) that he always steers conversation to, like the chef who's only really confident cooking pasta. Even leaving aside my distaste for his "Ivy League snobbery" about religion, repeatedly coming back to the same few points gets dull. In fairness, it's possible that's confirmation bias on my part.

[cbayer]

5. Interestingly, other than the headline, this article never mentions Maher.

I don't know if the editor did that to get hits or what, but it's pretty odd.