Who’s teaching the ethics teachers getting their ethics?

Peter says:

08:44am | 01/12/10

I beg to differ from iansand. While one can teach a framework for deciding ethical issues, if you stop there you are not really teaching ethics (morals, standards etc.) at all, but simply an “approach” to ethics. As David Hutt says this ends up in no more than judging whether you are being true to yourself or not. It is totally individualistic! But the history of ethical discussion has always been otherwise.
Whether we like it or not, ethics involves making a judgement about behaviour against some sort of standard and unless we think as a community that standard is entirely self-determined then David Hutt’s concerns are entirely appropriate.

Steely Dan says:

09:18am | 01/12/10

@ iansand

Spot on.  Why is it that the ACL is so against this I wonder?

@ Peter

“While one can teach a framework for deciding ethical issues, if you stop there you are not really teaching ethics (morals, standards etc.)”
Ethics is the philosophy of morality.  There’s a difference between studying Ethics and being taught an ethical system.

MrMac says:

09:19am | 01/12/10

Peter, the ethics “classes” are group discussions to encourage processes for collective thinking and collective engagement.

It is about learning - as you say - to “think as a community”.

Arriving at an absolute is not necessary for these learning exercises

Lostie says:

09:31am | 01/12/10

Peter - A slight, but significant point that I would question. It relates to the terminology that is used in particular the difference between ethics and morality. While the terms are commonly used interchangeably, in a context such as this I think it is important that the distinction is duly noted.

Ethics relates to or is about the treatment of moral questions, while moral is concerned with the goodness or badness of character.

The difference is a significant one - what is proposed is classes on ethics (i.e where does morality come from, how do we solve moral questions) rather than dealing with the regulation of conduct.

If it were a class on morality then I would agree with your statement, but it’s not. You can make a moral judgement on a fact scenario, or you can consider the ‘ethics’ of the situation.

Summarily, ethics is little more than the study of morals. Morals being the rules that determine whether behaviour is good or bad.

Food for thought says:

09:43am | 01/12/10

I am probably going to get some replies from this. But I taught scripture based ethics class a couple of times, and no we did not once open up the bible and tell them to read leviticus or something. In fact I taught ethics from judeo-christian principles that our country’s culture is based on. Now, as a third year law student, I can see that the moral compass of the Law was and still is greatly derived from judeo-Christian principles. I remember (after teaching the golden rule) asking a kid if it was wrong to murder for fun (he was 15), he replied ‘I dunno’. In fact this is the most common response. A lot of my kids come from families that were divorced (and they were generally bad divorces) and their kids often see the parents bickering over child support and so on…I think it is terrible that the only time a kid has any say in what is right and what isn’t is during ethics class. They are peer pressured into saying nothing out of school and although their parents care, they often act differently. The next generation is going to be a bunch of adults that stand by while someone drowns, instead of throwing the life saver tyre next to them. when that kid said ‘I dunno’, I replied ‘You do know, the answer is no, it is never okay’. Patting him on the head and saying ‘Good try, thats an excellent standard of morals you’ve got there’ is not a good idea. Unfortunately, a framework is not enough. And as to the framework, what better framework than the framework of our cultures morals, the judeo-christian principles?

MrMac says:

10:18am | 01/12/10

FoodforThought,

Socrates, Plato and Aristotle had begun to think about the nature of the good and the good society nearly 1,000 years before Christianity took hold around the Mediterranean and Europe ...

What we think of as distinctive of western [judeo-christian] moral principles has its roots in the non-religious secular tradition of ethics that comes from that classical Greek antiquity.  Socrates was killed for his views, and western society has been side-tracked for the last 1600 years.

MrMac says:

10:18am | 01/12/10

FoodforThought,

Socrates, Plato and Aristotle had begun to think about the nature of the good and the good society nearly 1,000 years before Christianity took hold around the Mediterranean and Europe ...

What we think of as distinctive of western [judeo-christian] moral principles has its roots in the non-religious secular tradition of ethics that comes from that classical Greek antiquity.  Socrates was killed for his views, and western society has been side-tracked for the last 1600 years.

MrMac says:

10:18am | 01/12/10

FoodforThought,

Socrates, Plato and Aristotle had begun to think about the nature of the good and the good society nearly 1,000 years before Christianity took hold around the Mediterranean and Europe ...

What we think of as distinctive of western [judeo-christian] moral principles has its roots in the non-religious secular tradition of ethics that comes from that classical Greek antiquity.  Socrates was killed for his views, and western society has been side-tracked for the last 1600 years.

Dan says:

10:29am | 01/12/10

Hilarious stuff. Lets not discuss issues of the day like terrorism or designer babies, instead lets talk about moral concepts like eternal torment and torture by nails.

Lets get to the point here. This is how they make money and they are incredibly afraid that the money will be taken away from them.

Zaf says:

10:29am | 01/12/10

@ foodforthought

How about helping the kid figure out whether it was right or wrong by identifying his assumptions and using some deductive logic - iow, give him a method to deal with issues in the future?  That’s what an ethics class sounds like it should do.

Luce says:

10:52am | 01/12/10

Peter the classes are aimed at teaching children the skill of critical thinking without having to be told the answer so that when they are faced with a situation where there is no teacher telling them what is right or wrong they have the tools to decide for themselves.

Mr GG says:

11:02am | 01/12/10

Peter is Right,
Ethically anything is acceptable as long as you can justify it in a non-hypocritical way, which is to say ‘it could happen to me too’.
Ethically (not Morally) you can say that all levels of Violence are acceptable because in nature all levels of violence are acceptable, the only factor is survival.

MrMac says:

11:37am | 01/12/10

MrGG,
as far as violence and humans go, survival is not the only factor.

Kate says:

11:52am | 01/12/10

@Luce “the classes are aimed at teaching children the skill of critical thinking without having to be told the answer so that when they are faced with a situation where there is no teacher telling them what is right or wrong they have the tools to decide for themselves”

This is exactly what the religious lobby are so afraid of.

Steely Dan says:

11:57am | 01/12/10

@ Mr GG

What do you mean “in nature all levels of violence are acceptable”?

Joan says:

12:52pm | 01/12/10

`What ought I do`..... I`m sure the teachers will give a range of examples from a to z.  That`s what you call indocrination by stealth. At least with religious leaders you know where they come from, a Teachers Union rabble leading the way is another thing .

Rosie says:

01:29pm | 01/12/10

Simple things like moral principles or ethics are made complicated by mainly the academics trying to put forward their own point of view.

Moral principles comes from having moral choices. Most of us are left with a legacy of having a direction, an objective, gaols, purpose and a sense of believing in one’s self. This is a legacy that I would like to leave behind.

Experts should teach whatever is considered good for society to those that need it and it is an individual choice how one deals with it. While at school I was taught catholicism by a Catholic priest to cater for the catholics in the class. Like a good little girl I sat and listened but in no way was taken in by what was told to the class.

Life is all about choices and the choices we make will define who we are and the life we lead.

It is not difficult to know that we have the rule of law to abide with so why complicate such a simple issue as having a moral compass and sticking to it!

iansand says:

02:09pm | 01/12/10

Joan - I sure as heck hope they give a range of answers.  I hope that one of those answers is that the issue can be resolved by acceptance of religion as a guiding principle for a child’s ethics.

If a range of answers is “indoctrination by stealth” insisting on the one true answer is indoctrination that would do any dictator proud.  I think that your answer may demonstrate a truth that underlies church opposition to ethics classes.  They are frightened to let people think because they know that too much thought will erode their flocks.  We know what other critters hang around in flocks.

Luce says:

02:24pm | 01/12/10

@Kate, i know, its a little ridiculous and massive shame. Imagine what the world would be like if people could think for themselves.

Joan says:

02:46pm | 01/12/10

Iansand; We know the religious doctrines we don’t know experimental doctrines of teachers and we put children   under control of these people who comme with their own set of beliefs. belief systems,  the children of Australia now to be their guinea pigs

n_dude says:

03:39pm | 01/12/10

@Peter - and how do scripture classes teach this? Short of converting yourself into a “born again” Christian the only answer scripture classes provide is “do what we tell you to do”. I much prefer the answer provided by @iansand.

MrMac says:

03:42pm | 01/12/10

Joan, it is a set curriculum of scenarios - someone else here has the link.  Teacher or volunteer beliefs do not come into it.  You are projecting scripture-SRE techniques onto this.  The outcomes are just that the kids experience collegial discussion.

iansand says:

03:57pm | 01/12/10

Joan - It is a thing we call a curriculum.  Something that the loopies who teach RE do not worry too much about, if I recall my youth correctly.

Joan says:

05:29pm | 01/12/10

MrMac and Iansand;  Curriculum is it?  The Labor education revolution Gillard way with backstabbing and lying the new ethic? And volunteers, please can I put my hand up and volunteer…. sounds really robust ethic curriculum with volunteers in charge ... from which ethical pool will volunteers be drawn.?..

Reg says:

06:59pm | 01/12/10

I’d loved to have been an independent observer at one of Hitler’s ethics classes, the curriculum must have been a real eye-opener.

I watched an old soldier the other day explain that they fought on while staring defeat in the face because they regarded their oath to Hitler extremely seriously. So if ethics takes on a completely new disposition once someone in authority pronounces that “this country is therefore at war,” shouldn’t there be a ONE change to a ZERO somewhere in everyone’s brain?

Ethics to suit the occasion.

MobyBob says:

09:18am | 01/12/10

Good Point - Mr Hutt needs to come clean on his agenda

Dan says:

10:42am | 01/12/10

And as per normal, the children not in SRE are once again left out of their arguments. It is despicable and intentional. As we well know kids are suffering many forms of discrimination thanks to the inclusion of this indoctrination class in school time and David brushes this suffering aside like its irrelevant. Well David, you will soon find it much harder to ignore when the discrimination cases land in Victoria. Parents are flooding the Humanist Society with horror stories. You should be ashamed of yourself for ignoring these childrens right to feel safe and worthwhile in their own school. We all know what is at stake for you, funding, money money money. Its only ever been about indoctrination and money.

Real Deal says:

11:16am | 01/12/10

Really Jeremy, it is not basic ethics but using your computer lessons.  If you hover the cursor over his name and click on it it will tell you what he is. There is nothing hidden about that. The only thing hidden are the finacial backers of the ethics course itself.

Iain Hall says:

12:14pm | 01/12/10

Why does Jeremy Sear not declare that he is a paid writer for Crikey his full name when he goes around the net making the same sort of arguments that he makes here?

In his critique of this post at the ‘Pure Poison” he says this of the author here:
“Hutt is right to be angry, and this has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with his main job as NSW Director for the Australian Christian Lobby, which must be why he doesn’t mention his links to the lobby group most self-interested in maintaining its stranglehold on education, and why the details are only available if you click on his name to read the bio (on a separate link). If you don’t think to check, you’ll never know. Anyway, it’s entirely ethical to omit critical details to misleadingly alter readers’ approach to your argument if it’s FOR JESUS.”

Surely it is extremely hypocritical to complain about David Hutt not declaring his vested interest in propagating Christianity while he himself does not even declare his full name and affiliation when he comments here.

Steely Dan says:

12:32pm | 01/12/10

@ Iain Hall

“Why does Jeremy Sear not declare that he is a paid writer for Crikey”
Why?  Does Crikey have a vested interest in the outcome of the debate like the ACL does?

n_dude says:

03:51pm | 01/12/10

Sorry @Iain Hall - what does Jeremy Sear (assuming he is theone who wrote the posting) have to do with David Hutt and his links to the ACL. David should be upfront in declaring his personal interest. My question is that if they are so confident in the “special religous classes” - why does he have to write the article. is it because he may lose potential candidates to convert to Christianity because that isw the ultimate aim of these classes.

Jay says:

04:14pm | 01/12/10

Teaching people to think for themselves is a grave threat for the church, which relies on dogma, superstition and faith in the unprovable without any evidence.

They know this of course, cant have people thinking for themselves or theyll be leaving in droves!

Nick says:

11:02am | 01/12/10

... It is easy for organised religions to whip up 50000 signatures for a petition which pushes their particular agenda, which is to promote the lie that only religions can offer education in ethics. “

The fascinating irony in this is that the churches have altered their stance during this debate from the above position to one which says:’ Ethics classes shouldn’t be run at the same time as SRE because the children who attend SRE miss out” So they admit that they and their religious instruction does not teach ethics?!! Wow what a breakthrough!

I would also like to know how many of the 50, 000 signatures belong to people who attend public schools???(or conversely, attend religious private schools)

Akos says:

11:13am | 01/12/10

Hi Kevin,

‘As a matter of fact, the various religious conflicts and the emergence of organised religious fuelled terrorism illustrates the inherent contradictions in the ethics underlying most religions’

Just because extremists from one particular religion do terrible things (e.g. 9/11 etc), this does not logically mean that ALL religions teach such dodgy things. Whilst the religions of the world may be ASKING similar questions (what is the meaning of life, who is God, etc), they came up with fundamentally different answers to those questions. Thus we should judge each religion on it’s own merits, not on the merits of other, different religions (e.g. how many bible-believing Christian, or for that matter, Buddhist, suicide bombers have you heard of?).

On a related note, the worst regimes in human history (i.e. in our modern secular 20th century) were overtly secular regimes, and in the case of communism, overtly atheistic regimes. I think we should keep that in mind.

‘...which is to promote the lie that only religions can offer education in ethics’

The issue isn’t whether only religions can offer an education in ethics. However, it must be said that Christianity does offer a coherent reason for ethics/morality to exist (whether or not you agree with it). Atheism (for example) cuts the branch of ethics from underneath itself, as by logical necessity, ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ are merely manmade concepts - that is, in an accidental universe (e.g. in the atheistic worldview), there are no moral absolutes: only morals that we make up for ourselves (and thus have no logical legitimacy: they are only effective so far as we can enforce them).

In which case, nothing is (logically speaking)  ‘right’ or ‘wrong’: it’s merely personal (or societal) taste.

Tedd says:

11:44am | 01/12/10

Akos, those 20th century regimes were doctrinal, and ironically established or lead by people brought up in strict doctrinal religious systems.

Your proposition that atheism “cuts the branch of ethics from underneath itself, as by logical necessity, ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ are merely manmade concepts” is a non-sequitur fallacy and wibble, and denies all morality is man-made.

Tedd says:

11:44am | 01/12/10

Akos, those 20th century regimes were doctrinal, and ironically established or lead by people brought up in strict doctrinal religious systems.

Your proposition that atheism “cuts the branch of ethics from underneath itself, as by logical necessity, ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ are merely manmade concepts” is a non-sequitur fallacy and wibble, and denies all morality is man-made.

Kevin says:

12:00pm | 01/12/10

@ Akos
My point is that most religions contain internal contradictions (eg “an eye for an eye” and “turn the other cheek”) which allow extremists to cherry pick to suit their own personal views and, as such, make them very unsuitable as the basis for any coherent ethical viewpoint.
If there is coherence in Christian ethics it is based on the proposition that if you do wrong you go to hell.  In other words it is an appeal to a person’s self interest without explaining why something may be wrong.
I might add that Stalin studied theology which would seem to undermine the practical value of a religious education.

Steely Dan says:

12:11pm | 01/12/10

@ Akos

“On a related note, the worst regimes in human history (i.e. in our modern secular 20th century) were overtly secular regimes, and in the case of communism, overtly atheistic regimes.”
Name a secular dictatorship.  Secularism is the separation of church and state - meaning that any dictator that favoured religion (eg Hitler, Stalin) or banned religion (eg Stalin again, he was flip-flopping all over the place) was not secular.

“However, it must be said that Christianity does offer a coherent reason for ethics/morality to exist (whether or not you agree with it)”
Anybody can construct a ‘reason’. 

“In which case, nothing is (logically speaking)  ‘right’ or ‘wrong’: it’s merely personal (or societal) taste.”
Only if you think you require absolute divine guidance to determine right and wrong.  Prove there’s a divine guide first.  In the meantime, the rest of us will try to work out principles that benefit society.

interloper says:

01:37pm | 01/12/10

@ Kevin
“an eye for an eye” and “turn the other cheek” and not both elements of Christianity. Jesus specifically rejected ‘an eye for an eye’. I don’t argue that extremists cherry pick to suit their own personal views, but this doesn’t mean that a considered understanding of the whole thing doesn’t provide basis for a coherent ethical viewpoint.
“If there is coherence in Christian ethics it is based on the proposition that if you do wrong you go to hell.”
This is absolute, utter nonsense. You will find many Christians who do not believe in the concept of hell.
Here’s a tip for you: a humanist morality and a Christian morality will nearly always lead to the same answers to moral questions, because they are based on the same thinking. The main difference is in the ‘life’ questions (abortion, euthanasia etc), because a Christian morality gives an intrinsic value to life in the abstract, whereas a humanist morality does not. It’s a bit of a stretch to suggest that this is a religious construct, as belief or otherwise in God does not automatically determine view on ‘life’.

n_dude says:

04:03pm | 01/12/10

@interloper - when I did scripture i was taught that if you did not surrender to Jesus your name would not be included in the “Book of Eternal Life” and when you die, God will judge you on this and you will burn in hell. Now that seems to contradict what you were saying. So what is Christianity?

michael j says:

08:39pm | 01/12/10

Conseince were does it come from,it is present from a young age,and gives us ‘feelings’ of right or wrong and in some ways protects us from harm,i belive it will proberly be found in Genetic’s one day,as we are growing and learning moral’s are formed but moral’s are descions that are made upon a judgement according to surroundings,ie,is it ethical to tell a 13 yr old somali boy to put down a ak47,proberly if you can change his surroundings,,ethic’s is the teaching of using Conseince and morals and judgement so a 13 yr old doesn’t even get to see an ak47,,and i belive that Conseince is an awareness that is in someway a direct link to ‘GOD’ and let’s face it better to have kids looking at test tubes than ak 47’s

Akos says:

09:58pm | 01/12/10

Hi Tedd,
‘Akos, those 20th century regimes were doctrinal, and ironically established or lead by people brought up in strict doctrinal religious systems.’
I’m not sure what the point of your statement is, when you call these systems ‘doctrinal’.
The fact of the matter is that ALL political systems (whether the Greens, Labor, Liberal) have a certain ‘doctrine’, a certain ideology, core beliefs. Witness the difference between in views between Bob Brown and Tony Abbott - a different doctrine at play there.
Nevertheless, the Nazis and communists were overtly anti-Christian (and in Stalin’s case atheist) - that is all I am saying. This is simply to make the point that non-religious people (although one could possibly argue that Hitler had neo-nordic pagan influences in his rantings) were responsible for the worst atrocities in human history. Now, Christians have done bad things too, don’t get me wrong: but this is in direct contradiction to the explicit teachings of Christ himself, i.e. the problem was with the christian, not with the Christ!
As for both having been brought up in religous homes (and Stalin being a seminarian), I’m sure I don’t have to argue very hard that both rejected those teachings, and took on
board radically different ideologies. To say that having a ‘Christian’ upbringing naturally leads you to Nazism and atheism is patently ridiculous - how many Christian kids turn into Nazi’s and communists?
‘Your proposition that atheism “cuts the branch of ethics from underneath itself, as by logical necessity, ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ are merely manmade concepts” is a non-sequitur fallacy and wibble, and denies all morality is man-made.’
How is this a non-sequitor?
a) If there is no moral law giver, then there is no moral law.
b) If there is no moral law, then there is no ‘right’ or ‘wrong’.
c) If there is no ‘right’ or ‘wrong’, then no action can be condemned as being ‘evil’ or ‘wrong’.
Atheism takes the moral lawgiver out of the equation, and yet expects there
to be some standard (law) by which we can make judgements of what should be universally acceptable and binding (e.g. no pedophilia, no genocide)...but if there is no universal
moral law (how can there be without a lawgiver?), then what logical right does an atheist have to say that something is inherently ‘right’ or ‘wrong’? It seems that the very notion of
the universe being here by chance excludes there from being any moral law/standard of any kind…
And of course Christianity denies that all morality is man-made. If all morality was man-made (as atheism is left to assert), then who am I to tell another man what they should/shouldn’t do? Morality, then, is all just made up fiction, and nothing more than personal preference - like what flavour ice-cream you like… In which case you can’t ‘blame’ anyone for doing anything ‘wrong’ - not Stalin, not Hitler - because we have invented ‘good’ and ‘evil’,
in the same way that parents ‘invent’ stories of Santa Claus (sure, it might be for a more serious purpose than Santa, but it’s still fictional).

@ Kevin,
‘I might add that Stalin studied theology which would seem to undermine the practical value of a religious education.’
Does that mean we should ditch our school system, seeing as Ivan Milat went to school as a child?
‘If there is coherence in Christian ethics it is based on the proposition that if you do wrong you go to hell. In other words it is an appeal to a person’s self interest without explaining why something may be wrong.’
I am not sure where you get this from, but there is a lot more to Christian ethics than ‘you do wrong you go to hell’. The reason why something is wrong in Christianity is because it goes agains the moral character of God, i.e. God’s unchanging character determines what is good in Christian ethics. Yet Christianity is all about transforming a person from someone who doesn’t want to live God’s way, to someone that does. It’s not mere rules
and regulations - Jesus is on about transforming people, and bringing them back into relationship with himself.

Akos says:

10:03pm | 01/12/10

@ Steely Dan
‘Name a secular dictatorship. Secularism is the separation of church and state - meaning that any dictator that favoured religion (eg Hitler, Stalin) or banned religion (eg Stalin again, he was flip-flopping all over the place) was not secular.’
Um, where are you getting your notion of ‘secular’? By secular, all I mean is that it is non-religious - certainly communism was non-religious, and Nazism, whilst having some neo-pagan influences, was very much built on non-, even anti-Christian philosophies (i.e. Nitzche, Survival of the fittest, strong to rule over the weak etc).

‘Only if you think you require absolute divine guidance to determine right and wrong. Prove there’s a divine guide first. In the meantime, the rest of us will try to work out principles that benefit society.’
One can determine right and wrong: I know atheists believe in right and wrong. It’s just
that atheism logically demands that right and wrong be NOTHING MORE than man made inventions (see my argument above). Thus atheist’s are acting logically inconsistently when they argue for moral absolutes (e.g. genocided is absolutely wrong).* As Dawkins says in his book ‘out of Eden’, DNA doesn’t care: DNA just is. In which case, the Nazi’s didn’t do anything ‘wrong’: all they did
was act in ways that we don’t like.

*Although I would much rather have atheists act inconsistently with their worldview and argue that moral absolutes do exist, than argue that morals don’t exist (i.e are merely relative).

interloper says:

11:19pm | 01/12/10

n_dude:
Put simply, to me Christianity is belief in the divinity of Jesus, and in his resurrection. The Christians certainly borrowed a good deal from the Greeks in developing concepts of heaven and hell, but modern theologians have a somewhat different understanding of these concepts.
There are certainly evangelical Christians who preach ‘accept Jesus know as your Lord and Saviour and be reborn or you will be cast into the fiery pit of hell when you die.’ This is certainly not reflected across all Christian traditions.

Tedd says:

06:13am | 02/12/10

Akos, Hitler constantly made pro-Christian statements - “fighting for the Lord”, etc.  He got the swastika from his catholic school.  They often mixed the crucifix with the swastika e.g. this Hitler Youth badge (which Joesph Ratzinger would have worn)

http://www.nobeliefs.com/mementoes/HitlerYouthCross.JPG

Steely Dan says:

12:26pm | 02/12/10

@ Akos

“By secular, all I mean is that it is non-religious”
But that doesn’t mean secularists enforce atheism on people.  Secular nations are those that separate church and state and respect the freedoms of religion and non-religion alike.  Enforcing religious observance isn’t secular, and neither is banning all religious expression.  Our own secular government is non-religious – that is we have no state religion.  But that doesn’t mean that we or our representatives in government have to be non-religious.

“certainly communism was non-religious”
It can be, but it doesn’t have to be.  Strictly speaking communism is an economic system only.  Ancient communist societies were usually religious (as nearly all ancient societies were).  Many modern Marxist communists interpret Marx’s comments on religion to mean that religion should be banned, though many supposedly Marxist communists ignore that.  Stalin at first banned all religion, only to declare his support for Russian Orthodox as the state religion when it suited him (as if there was any doubt the guy was a megalomaniac).

“…and Nazism, whilst having some neo-pagan influences, was very much built on non-, even anti-Christian philosophies”
Hitler, Koblenz, August 26, 1934: ‘National Socialism neither opposes the Church nor is it anti-religious, but on the contrary, it stands on the ground of a real Christianity. The Church’s interests cannot fail to coincide with ours alike in our fight against the symptoms of degeneracy in the world of to-day, in our fight against the Bolshevist culture, against an atheistic movement, against criminality, and in our struggle for the consciousness of a community in our national life, for the conquest of hatred and disunion between the classes, for the conquest of civil war and unrest, of strife and discord. These are not anti-Christian, these are Christian principles’. Nazism was certainly not secular.  Hitler did indeed believe in the survival of the fittest – and he believed the Jews were the weakest for Biblical reasons, even though he had a lot of pagan influences as well.

“It’s just that atheism logically demands that right and wrong be NOTHING MORE than man made inventions”
That’s right.  Unless you can show that they are god-made inventions.

“Thus atheist’s are acting logically inconsistently when they argue for moral absolutes (e.g. genocided is absolutely wrong).”
Philosophically, moral absolutes cannot exist – because you can always construct some abstract hypothetical situation where committing something like genocide is the right action to take.  But for very obvious reasons we make laws that make things like genocide illegal anyway – because the chances of someone committing genocide that is justified is in practice the stuff of science fiction.

Akos says:

06:10am | 03/12/10

@ steely dan,

It seems you strongly believe that all morality is merely man-made. Have you thought through what the logical consequences are, of all morality being a fiction that we as human beings make up (for whatever reason)?

Here’s a few:

- it means the nazi’s didn’t do anything ‘wrong’. They just did things that we didn’t like: but hey, if our morality is merely made up ( and thereby fictional), we just need to realise that our understanding of morality is no more important/better than theirs was, as it’s all just culturally/individual tastes (and nothing more than that). The nazi’s felt that it was in their ( and the world’s for that matter) best  interest to get rid of the Jews - by what standard are you going to condemn them for that? Whatever standard you use, by logical necessity, will be unacceptable, because it will be a fictional standard. You might as well condemn the nazi’s as being ‘evil’ because their taste in food, music, wine etc differed to yours.

- likewise with enron. Their biggest ‘crime’, according to your account of morality being man- made, was that of getting caught. According to their own standard (‘get rich whatever it takes’), they weren’t doing anything ‘wrong’ - they were actig consistently with their own standard. And if your standard of right and wrong happens to differ, well, too bad, so sad - it’s just as fictional as their standard of right and wrong. So you can’t condemn them by your (fictional) standard. 

- as for scripture in schools and ethics classes. It sounds to me that you and others think that there has been some ‘wrong’ done by the acl and those who oppose ethics teaching.  But by what standard? According to your take on morality, your own standard of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ is fictional. So why should anyone listen to your complaints, seeing as your standard of morality (by which you condemn the acl’s actions) is as real as Santa claus? 

And if your boss suddenly thought to himself that it’s ok to rip you off, and this was acceptable according to his own moral standard (he wouldn’t be the first boss that thought that), then you’ve got noninherent right to condemn him for his actions, as your morality is no more valid or true than his. Again, you would have to settle for ‘too bad, so sad’. 

Akos says:

06:20am | 03/12/10

@ steely dan

As for your quote from hitler- there’s no doubt that hitler appealed to Christianity in his rhetoric, for justification for his views (especially early on in his regime - which is why many christians (foolishly) voted for him, btw). But we need to look at his actions, not just his words. We do this with our own politicians (how many people truly believed John Howard when he said that ‘no one would be worse off’ under Work choices?). John howard said that work choices would be fair- but was ‘fairness’ really a core value that drove his version of Workchoices? Or was there another ideology at work?

Same with every other politician- and especially Hitler. We need to go beyond the rhetoric to see what beliefs really drove him . The man who said (in that speech you quoted) that he was acting according to Christian principles, is the same man who forced his version of Nazi ideology onto the churches (and sadly many did not have a problem with it). But for churches who disagreed with him  on purely scriptural grounds, he persecuted. 
And I’m sure I don’t have to mention his racist ideology, his starting of the second world war, his atrocities, the final solution, master race, inferior races, survival of the fittest - all of these actions (and the Nazi beliefs behind them) were explicitly, unambiguously, anti- Christian. 

A persons’ true beliefs are betrayed by their actions, not by their (empty) words. Hitler is no different in this regard. 

So we need to ask, his rhetoric (i.e. his lies) aside, was this man driven by christianity, or by another ideology?.
 I don’t think we have to look too deeply to get a fairly conclusive answer to that question. 

Steely Dan says:

11:01am | 03/12/10

@ Akos

““It seems you strongly believe that all morality is merely man-made.”
It seems you haven’t been able to show an alternative.  Until you can demonstrate a god exists, man-made is what we have.

“Have you thought through what the logical consequences are, of all morality being a fiction that we as human beings make up (for whatever reason)?”
Have you realised this is an argument ad consequentiam?

“it means the nazi’s didn’t do anything ‘wrong’. They just did things that we didn’t like”
You mean things we really, really, really didn’t like, and things that were far worse than that.  Because they killed people.  Because they persecuted people. And these actions are wrong because we rational humans realise that committing these crimes is terrible – if we value our lives and our freedoms (do you?).  Only the criminally insane disagree.  And there’s no need to put a ‘just’ in there.  That’s like saying Alpha Centauri is ‘just’ 4.37 light years away from the Sun.

“but hey, if our morality is merely made up ( and thereby fictional)”
We made up the concept of the number four.  Is the number four fictional?  Is it not a valid concept?

“as it’s all just culturally/individual tastes (and nothing more than that).”
Is there a culture that enjoys being killed against their will?

“The nazi’s felt that it was in their ( and the world’s for that matter) best interest to get rid of the Jews - by what standard are you going to condemn them for that?”
Rational ones which aim to promote universal preferences for a peaceful, pain-free existence.  Have you got an alternative?

“According to their own standard (‘get rich whatever it takes’), they weren’t doing anything ‘wrong’ - they were actig consistently with their own standard.”
You mean double-standard.

Re Hitler: “But we need to look at his actions, not just his words.”
So he wasn’t a ‘True Scotsman’?  You can’t say he wasn’t a Christian simply because you don’t think he acted like a Christian should.

“And I’m sure I don’t have to mention his racist ideology, his starting of the second world war, his atrocities, the final solution, master race, inferior races, survival of the fittest - all of these actions (and the Nazi beliefs behind them) were explicitly, unambiguously, anti- Christian.”
Says you.  Can you find Biblical justification that these are anti-Christian?  Hitler certainly quoted scripture that supported his beliefs.  There are plenty of passages that promotes anti-Semitism, and plenty that justify war.

“So we need to ask, his rhetoric (i.e. his lies) aside, was this man driven by christianity, or by another ideology?”
Whether it was Christianity, another ideology or a combination of the two, it certainly appears that Christianity does not make a country immune to promoting violent dictatorships.  Your original assertion that atheism leads to atrocities isn’t looking great.

Akos says:

01:21pm | 04/12/10

@ Steely Dan:

Thanks for this discussion mate! Very interesting. ?

‘It seems you haven’t been able to show an alternative.  Until you can demonstrate a god exists, man-made is what we have’

I’d be happy to argue for the existence of God, but I’ll firstly argue that reducing morality to something that is nothing more than man-made is an untenable solution: it is impossible to live out the logical consequences of such a view (Bioethicist Peter Singer comes close, at least on paper. But even he is logically inconsistent in this). From this, I will gladly springboard onto arguing for the existence of God. ?

‘You mean things we really, really, really didn’t like, and things that were far worse than that.  Because they killed people.  Because they persecuted people. And these actions are wrong because we rational humans realise that committing these crimes is terrible – if we value our lives and our freedoms (do you?).  Only the criminally insane disagree.’

Mate, I don’t disagree that murder is wrong. I think most people agree about that.

The problem with your arguement, however, is the following.
1)  You first say that all moral standards are merely man-made.
2)  You then say that there is a moral standard that people should abide by (namely not murdering others).
3)  And you then hold the Nazi’s accountable to that moral standard, saying that what they did was ‘wrong’, according to that standard.

Well, of course I value my life and freedom. And I’m sure the Jews (and other people that the Nazi’s persecuted) valued theirs as well. 

The problem is, of course, that the Nazi’s did not hold to that same moral standard.
Their moral standard was NOT one of:

a)    ‘you shall not murder’, (c.f. Exodus Chapter 20:13)

but rather,

b)  ‘you shall murder jews, gypsy’s, and anyone else the fuhrer deems to be unfit for life’.

Needless to say, those are two very different moral standards!

You and I both agree that “(a)” is the right moral standard, and that “(b)” is abhorrent, and wrong.

The trouble is, when you reduce morality to something that is merely a creation of our own minds, then there is no ‘correct’ standard.

Standard (a) is no more valid, no more correct, than standard (b).

Why?

Because both are made up!

Both are equally fictional, equally unreal.

It’s like arguing which one is more correct: santa claus, or the Easter Bunny?

Both are fairy stories, that we make up for some purpose or another.

But of course, you seem to be quite adamant that the moral standard ‘you shall not murder’  seems to have more validity
than the Nazi alternative.

But logically speaking, you’re contradicting yourself at that point.
For If both are merely made up, then neither moral standard has any
more validity than the other: in fact, by logical necessity, because both are merely man made, neither has any validity in the real world at all!

(We just happen to like it better in 21st century Australia).

Akos says:

01:25pm | 04/12/10

@ Steely Dan,

‘We made up the concept of the number four.  Is the number four fictional?  Is it not a valid concept?’

I’m no platonist, but the number four in and of itself does not exist in the real world: it is nothing more than a concept in our own minds. However,
when applied to objects (i.e. when objects are numbered), then at that point it can correspond to the real world.

But if morality is merely ‘man-made’ then, it is more akin to the easter bunny
than the number 4: or are you saying that our moral understanding does have some correspondence to the real world
and that it is not merely something that we make up? Is our moral understanding an expression of something objective, real, outside of ourselves (‘stitched in to the fabric of reality’)? That is certainly the Christian understanding. But as far as I can tell, it is not yours – or am I mistaken in that?

‘Is there a culture that enjoys being killed against their will?’
My point was not that some cultures enjoy being killed: rather, that some (e.g. nazi’s), found it acceptable to kill others. 

When I wrote: “The nazi’s felt that it was in their ( and the world’s for that matter) best interest to get rid of the Jews - by what standard are you going to condemn them for that?”, you replied: ‘Rational ones which aim to promote universal preferences for a peaceful, pain-free existence.  Have you got an alternative?’

My aim at the moment is not to give an alternative (although I don’t think we can do much better than the Judeo-Christian ethic). My aim is simply to point out that both the Nazi’s and the communists were acting ‘rationally’ (psychologically defined) when they killed off undesireables within their respective societies. As the (non-Christian) canadian philosopher John Raulston Saul points out, in his seminal work ‘Voltaires bastards: the dictatorship of reason in the west’, the holocaust was not some act by a bunch of mentally ill, or drug crazed lunnies. But rather, the work of cool, calm, collected, and rational technocrats (and of course, their leaders). Of course, their whole worldview (their assumptions about reality) was warped, but they were acting completely rationally within their understanding or reality (which they boasted was completely rational).
But more to the point, you use the words ‘universal’, in relation to your standard of a peaceful, pain free existence.
How can any moral be ‘universal’ (applying to all?), and yet at the same time ‘man made’? The two are mutually exclusive, are they not?

Or are you saying there is a moral standard
outside or ourselves, to which we are accountable, whether we agree with it or not?

Akos says:

01:28pm | 04/12/10

@ Steely Dan,

(Apologies for the essay mate! But it is a great discussion…:)

‘You can’t say he wasn’t a Christian simply because you don’t think he acted like a Christian should.’
Can a member for the Greens still be called an environmentalist, whilst promoting unlimited mining, dirty power generation, unrestrained logging, nuclear power etc?

In every sphere of life, whether religious, political, or otherwise, your actions are the true barometer of your beliefs.

Hitler was the equivalent of a Green’s member cutting down all the forests of Australia, and digging up half the country to start uranium mines. Doesn’t sound like he really believed his own(occasional) rhetoric, does it? Of course, Hitler majored on his Nazi ideology, and was happy to ditch any Christian rhetoric, so he was never in the ‘true Christian believer’ camp to start with.

‘Says you.  Can you find Biblical justification that these are anti-Christian?  Hitler certainly quoted scripture that supported his beliefs.  There are plenty of passages that promotes anti-Semitism, and plenty that justify war’

Can I find justification that racist ideology, Hitler’s starting of the second world war, his atrocities, the final solution, master race, inferior races, survival of the fittest - all of these actions (and the Nazi beliefs behind them) were explicitly, unambiguously, anti- Christian?

With all due respect, have you had a serious read of the bible for yourself? Starting from Genesis 4 (Cain’s murder of Abel), through to the book of Revelation, murder, envy, greed, hatred are all condemned – how much more the vile actions that these things lead to!
Jesus summed up the entire moral code of the bible in two commands: love God, and love your neighbour (Luke 10:27). But he goes further: Jesus commands us to love our enemies (Luke 6:27).

Are you trying to tell me that Hitler loved his enemies?

Futhermore, which passages have you got in mind that promote anti-semitism? Or promote war?

‘Whether it was Christianity, another ideology or a combination of the two, it certainly appears that Christianity does not make a country immune to promoting violent dictatorships.’

It is said that the message of the bible is preached by the first generation, assumed by the second, forgotten by the third, denied by the fourth.
If you take a look at the state of the German churches around the rise of Hitler, they had well and truly forgotton (or at least diluted) the message of Jesus (by the false god of nationalism etc), such that anyone who made vague references to being Christian (e.g. Hitler) was uncritically accepted by many in the German churches. Historically, this was due to an the rationalist movement within German academia in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. In other words, the churches were whiteanted from within by the time Hitler came along, and he was able to sway them it his cause.

Had Hitler tried to pull off his nonsense during the height of the German reformation (when biblical knowledge was much stronger), he would not have gotten very far, I would vouch to say.

Futhermore, Hitler was voted into power. Hitler said things in 1933 that made him seem acceptable to many in Germany. But had he promised to start a war, wipe out 6 million jews etc. in 1933, would he have gotten very far? I think not. He needed absolute power, before he could put those plans into effect. But by the time he held the reigns of power, it was too late for the average German to do anything about it (unless of course they wanted to put their own lives, and those of their loved ones in danger – and a number did do that, for sure).

Your original assertion that atheism leads to atrocities isn’t looking great’

I never said Hitler was an atheist.

But Stalin was.

And having spent the first four years of my life in a communist country, (and whose family suffered at the hands of communists),  I know for a fact that the darkest times of communism coincided with the rule of people who were consciously happy to throw aside the morals and norms of the Judeo Christian ethic, in order to achieve the aims of Utopia on earth. And why were they able to do such things? Because they believed that morality was merely man-made: and that their morality was better than what came before them.

I am not saying that all atheists would do the same. I am merely saying that atheism gives the logical justification for getting rid of the shackles of Christian morality, for the sake of doing things unthinkably horrendous by Christian standards (in order to achieve a workers paradise etc).

I am very sad to say that these things happened, by people who consciously understood that atheism gave them the logical justification for ditching our view of morality.

All the best,

Akos

Steely Dan says:

06:17pm | 05/12/10

@ akos (pt 1)

“it is impossible to live out the logical consequences of such a view”
I disagree, obviously.  Can you expand on why you think that is?

“The trouble is, when you reduce morality to something that is merely a creation of our own minds, then there is no ‘correct’ standard.”
There is a standard that will give us the best chance of reaching a shared goal (not wanting to be killed).  That would be the ‘correct’ standard.  If you’re saying there has to be divine judge to say something is correct, you’ve got some proving to do.

“Because both are made up!  Both are equally fictional, equally unreal.”
But the application of the standards haver real consequences.  The fact that we create the standard in our minds doesn’t mean that anarchy will provide just as much stability as a democratic republic. 

“For If both are merely made up, then neither moral standard has any?more validity than the other”
We want laws that get results – one can deliver, one can’t.  The one that delivers is valid.  You still seem to be assuming that right and wrong actions can only be called right or wrong by divine decree.

“However,?when applied to objects (i.e. when objects are numbered), then at that point it can correspond to the real world.”
And when seeking to reach real-world goals (ie. not getting killed), laws against murder – which are conceptual laws that we choose to implement – can help us reach these goals.  The general preference (you can call it subjective if you want, I don’t care) for people to want to stay alive and not be harmed is very real.

“Is our moral understanding an expression of something objective, real, outside of ourselves (‘stitched in to the fabric of reality’)?”
We do have an innate understanding of morality (generally speaking) – but that comes from our society and even from our genetics (if you want to say ‘God wrote it on our hearts’, then make the case for a god).  But obviously that instinct alone is not sufficient to keep society functioning.
“(although I don’t think we can do much better than the Judeo-Christian ethic).”
Why do you say that?  Because you believe God said it, or because you believe that it works?  If it’s the former, you have to show that (the Judeo-Christian) God exists.  If it’s the latter, you’re arguing for an ethical system on it’s utility – which is a secular justification.

“My aim is simply to point out that both the Nazi’s and the communists were acting ‘rationally’ (psychologically defined) when they killed off undesireables within their respective societies.”
That’s true.  If their objective was to make people scapegoats and profit from their demise, they did act rationally.  But it’s not about how they reached their goal – it’s about what their goal was.  If their objective was to promote a peaceful society, they failed. 
“Of course, their whole worldview (their assumptions about reality) was warped, but they were acting completely rationally within their understanding or reality (which they boasted was completely rational).”
Conflicting actions executed by people with competing interests can all be rational.  Rationality isn’t the issue.

“How can any moral be ‘universal’ (applying to all?), and yet at the same time ‘man made’? The two are mutually exclusive, are they not?”
The preferences are universal, not the morals (of course, there are always a tiny minority of people who actually prefer death and suffering).

“Or are you saying there is a moral standard?outside or ourselves, to which we are accountable, whether we agree with it or not?”
Outside of humanity?  I’ve seen no evidence of it.

Steely Dan says:

06:19pm | 05/12/10

@ akos (pt 2)

“Can a member for the Greens still be called an environmentalist, whilst promoting unlimited mining, dirty power generation, unrestrained logging, nuclear power etc?”
Probably not.  But that would depend on the agreed definition of ‘environmentalist’.  They’d still be a Green though (unless the party booted them).  When I say Christian, I’m talking about someone who believes that Jesus Christ – as son of/part of God – was sent to earth as a saviour for mankind.  I imagine most people are okay with that definition.

“Hitler was the equivalent of a Green’s member cutting down all the forests of Australia, and digging up half the country to start uranium mines.”
Both sound pretty hypocritical.  You won’t get any argument from me there.

“Doesn’t sound like he really believed his own(occasional) rhetoric, does it?”
I think he completely believed his rhetoric.  He found the Biblical justification for his atrocities, and ignored the bits that looked like they might conflict.  If he didn’t get a visitation from God telling him he had it wrong, he might have assumed that he was doing God’s bidding.

“so he was never in the ‘true Christian believer’ camp to start with.”
Are you?  Do you support slavery?  Do you think homosexuals deserve to be executed?

“With all due respect, have you had a serious read of the bible for yourself?”
Yes!

“murder, envy, greed, hatred are all condemned”
Sometimes.  Sometimes God doesn’t seem to mind.  God kills people for being unrighteous (his standard, obviously… Genesis 19:24).  He kills the firstborn Egyptian children (Exodus 12:29).  With God’s approval, Joshua kills the Amalekites (Exodus 17:13).  God sends a plague to kill 14,700 people for the crime of complaing about God’s killing of 250 people (Numbers 16:49).  And the atrocities of Numbers 31:1-18.  You know the list goes on.

“Jesus summed up the entire moral code of the bible in two commands: love God, and love your neighbour (Luke 10:27). But he goes further: Jesus commands us to love our enemies (Luke 6:27).”
Which conflicts with Matthew 5:18.  Why do you preference Luke over Matthew? 

“Futhermore, which passages have you got in mind that promote anti-semitism?”
Matt 27:25; 1 Thess 2:14; John 8:44.  For some mistreatment of a Canaanite, see Matt 15:26.  And God doesn’t like Amaleks, either (Ex 17:14).
“Or promote war?”
Psalm 144:1; Matthew 10:34.  God obviously commands war frequently in the OT. 

“If you take a look at the state of the German churches around the rise of Hitler, they had well and truly forgotton (or at least diluted) the message of Jesus”
This sounds like ‘no real Christian’ again. 

“Had Hitler tried to pull off his nonsense during the height of the German reformation (when biblical knowledge was much stronger), he would not have gotten very far, I would vouch to say.”
Really?  Ever heard of a book called ‘On the Jews and Their Lies’, written by a certain M Luther?  He had something to do with the German reformation, apparently.  Hitler was a big fan.

“Hitler said things in 1933 that made him seem acceptable to many in Germany. But had he promised to start a war, wipe out 6 million jews etc. in 1933, would he have gotten very far?”
Hitler wrote ‘Mein Kampf’ while in jail for a failed coup in 1923.  The two volumes were published in 1925 and 1926.  In it, Hitler argues that Jews cannot be German, and that if Germany had gassed 12,000 to 15,000 German Jews during WWI “the sacrifice of millions of soldiers would not have been in vain”.  Publicly, Hitler had raged against Jews (and others) in front of crowds since the end of WWI.  Hitler did not sneak into office on a ‘lets all be friends’ platform.

“I am very sad to say that these things happened, by people who consciously understood that atheism gave them the logical justification for ditching our view of morality.”
Atheism doesn’t give people justification for anything, good or bad.  Atheism is not a moral philosophy.  It’s not a philosophy of any kind.  It’s simply a rejection of the assertion that god/s exist – and that rejection can be for good reasons or bad ones.  The people who ditched your view of morality also had a belief or a number of beliefs that they thought justified their actions.  While atheism is perfectly compatible with atrocity (and altruism) it isn’t sufficient to cause it.

Tedd says:

08:54am | 01/12/10

Joan, there is discussion, not indoctrination.

What “this person” are you referring to? There does not always have to be an authority figure or absolute authority, particularly for simple exercises in discussion for school kids.

Joan says:

12:45pm | 01/12/10

Tedd…. someone has to set up the syllabus….. who is this person, what background do they come from, .... who decides what is important and what isn’t ???  Parents have a right to know what their child is taught ... ethics ... covers a wide range…. who is to say the teacher knows what is right, wrong, good, bad better than the parent.? It is one thing to study ethics as a young adult but another to teach Primary school children who learn and repeat like little parrots.

Tedd says:

12:56pm | 01/12/10

Joan, nothing concrete is being “taught” - they are, as others have commented here, exercises in collective group discussion about scenarios.  There is no doctrinal outcome.

The information is freely available.

eg. http://parents4ethics.org/the-ethics-pilot/course-content/

No doubt the course material will evolve with input from a number of sources.

Joan says:

01:34pm | 01/12/10

Tedd…. the scenarios will be selective by the teacher to get the outcome the teacher wants….. indoctrination to suit the teachers set of beliefs.. In a dicussion on say fairness… Child -. Susie might say ...  `Jane pulled my hair,  it`s fair that I pull her hair and I will pull it harder and make sure she doesn’t do it again.`  Will the teacher stay mute on this ?  Will the teacher put Susie on trial and have other students make judgement on Susie`s decision.?

Tedd says:

02:01pm | 01/12/10

You’re making up scenarios, Joan = strawman fallacies.

Joan says:

02:51pm | 01/12/10

Tedd; Scenarios that is what t teachers will set .... or sit their mute…. the teachers will not be as benign as you say.  If teachers have nothing to say why waste taxpayer money on their wages, superannuation etc etc.. If children are expected to be their own guide, why bother with the exercise?

Tedd says:

03:39pm | 01/12/10

Joan, the ethic “classes” will be scenarios in the link I gave above, supervised - like SRE/scripture - by volunteers.  You are making up parallel scenarios and attacking your made up scenarios - that is classic strawman fallacy.

n_dude says:

04:06pm | 01/12/10

Joan, what is the syllabus for scripture besides indcotrinating Christianity? This often depends on the teacher and their values. My scripture teachers were religous nuts who sole aim in life was to convert everyone in the class. I don’t see any difference between the two.

B says:

10:25am | 01/12/10

Wow, that’s some intelligent way of actually engaging with the issue. I don’t like the messenger so the message isn’t even worth listening to. Congratulations to you.

Real Deal says:

11:19am | 01/12/10

Well said B. That’s an open mind for you!

Freddie says:

12:59pm | 01/12/10

The messenger has been trying to stymie the ethics course and thus the people it is aimed for - i.e. they are more than messengers

Tedd says:

08:58am | 01/12/10

Allowing toddler behaviour that is dangerous to the toddler* or others to persist is immoral and unethical.

* he could have pithed himself, especially if he fell forward on it.

DG says:

09:35am | 01/12/10

Jim, this is a nice little straw man - no one is suggesting that ethics be taught to toddlers. We are talking about children that should have already been trained with some basic notion of right and wrong.

aqcotrel says:

10:16am | 01/12/10

My kids were never taught ‘right and wrong’.  They were always given choices, and told the possible consequences.  These days they’re grown up, and I know I can always rely on them to act ethically.  ‘Right and wrong’ have no meaning, ethical and unethical do!  There is no ‘evil’ in the world, only INSANITY !

Peter says:

08:49am | 02/12/10

(Choke choke gag gasp) Kids having a sense of right and wrong?? Which planet are you on? have you tried observing kids in the playground? have you actually had a conversation with a 10-year old who has had 10 years to develop a sense of right and wrong?
This is why we treat kids differently under the law from adults. This is why they need moral guidance, not pooled ignorance.

BobS says:

09:49am | 01/12/10

Boy Dave, are you in for a rude awakening. Thanks to recent discoveries in molecular biology even well known philosopher and atheist Antony Flew concluded that there must be a God of some sort, an intelligent first cause.  You also might like to consider what another notorious atheist Richard Dawkins admitted to in one of his less guarded moments. “There are no Christians, as far as I know, blowing up buildings. I am not aware of any Christian suicide bombers. I am not aware of any major Christian denomination that believes the penalty for apostasy is death. I have mixed feelings about the decline of Christianity, in so far as Christianity might be a bulwark against something worse.”  But finally a piece of logic from an atheistic co-worker when I was being ridiculed for my beliefs one day. “Bob has his bases covered. If there is no God well we all end up in the same place. If there is a God Bob wins and we lose.

Trevor says:

10:12am | 01/12/10

@BobS
You are obviously well practiced in the art of “quote mining”. Richard Dawkins gave quite an instructive lecture on exactly the sort of thing that you have just engaged in, you can look it up on YouTube, might even give you a few more quotes that you can twist to support your own position. And as for your so called “piece of logic” from an atheist co-worker, you might want to look up Pascal’s Wager, you might find he wasn’t being as supportive as you assume.

Tedd says:

10:13am | 01/12/10

BobS,

You refer to Pascal’s Wager.  Perhaps you might also consider Richard Dawkins anti-Pascal Wager -

“it could be said that you will lead a better, fuller life if you bet on his not existing, than if you bet on his existing and therefore squander your precious time on worshiping him, sacrificing to him, fighting and dying for him, etc

Antony Flew is no longer an atheist.

Dave says:

10:20am | 01/12/10

BobS, simplicity is the only thing that keeps religion alive. So the day religion relied on molecular biology to justify its existence is the day religion died with the masses.

Dawkins also said, science flies people to the moon, religion flies people into buildings.

As for your Pascal’s wager, if that makes you happy, why not, but that’s not an argument for the existence of God.

As for Islam, what can we say, it’s the worst religion in the world. Islam is guilty of many crimes, the first one being plagiarism.

True Believer says:

10:32am | 01/12/10

BobS:

Great post, some sense amongst the nonsense makes a refreshing change.

Any discussion remotely relating to “religion” and out troop the atheists and turn it into a hate session against Christianity.  They do not have the intestinal fortitude to take on Islam or Hinduism or other world religions. I wonder why?  Could it be that Christianity is the greatest threat to their limpet-like clinging to unbelief?

Is it ethical to denigrate the belief system of a large number of people simply because, as can be seen from many of their posts, the critics are spiritually ignorant?

I am writing this in my own time - wonder how many are writing in their employer’s time when they are being paid to work. Is it ethical to steal time from your employer?

Debate if you will, criticize if you must, but not with the over-generalisations that are all too frequent in these discussions.

Much of the hatred seems to be directed at one denomination, the Catholic Church. One poster ever refers to the Pope as the “top bloke” of Christianity. Well the Pope is not my “top bloke” - to me he is another fallible human being as I am. Please posters - do not try to lump all believers with one denomination.

I am personally undecided as a Christian about the usefulness of teaching scripture in classes.  I can recall sitting in classes and hearing it, but certainly not understanding it.  Then I did not have the personal relationship with Jesus that I now have. I knew of Him, but I did not know Him.

Without the Lord it is impossible to understand His Word.  Hence the unbelievers decry it as “fairy stories” etc etc. They cannot understand it as it is not written to be read without its Author being present.

I know this from my own walk with Him and despite their attempts to belittle me and my Lord I do empathise with them.  In time they too will find out the Truth.  Jesus said “I am the way, the truth and the life.”

Tedd says:

10:46am | 01/12/10

TrueBeliever,
is it Is it ethical to denigrate people for being “spiritually ignorant”, or to characterise them as “limpet-like clinging to unbelief”?

True Believer says:

11:12am | 01/12/10

Tedd:

I am not denigrating them I am stating the truth about their situation. I do not gloat or denigrate. There, but for the Grace of God go I.

I too was spiritually ignorant for many years. I know their plight and I truly empathise with them. They are missing out on the best part as I also did.

As for my metaphorical use of the limpet to illustrate how I perceive their plight that was not meant to denigrate. It seems to me that so many unbelievers who post on these pages cling desperately to what they have been taught by other people, can observe, can understand - as a limpet clings for dear life to the rock in the ocean so people without the Rock of Ages cling to their own understanding and its limitations. It takes a degree of spiritual courage to make the leap of faith. Limpets do not have that capacity as far as we know, but we do.  So many unbelievers seem determined to cling to their own understanding, that is the sad part.  As I have said many times, I understand, I too have clung to the perishable before the Lord showed me the imperishable. 

We cannot understand God - if we could He would not be God.  All we can do is accept Him and His Word - then our spiritual eyes are opened. 

First though we have to acknowledge our need of Him. He will not intrude, “I stand at the door and knock,” Jesus said. It is up to us to open that door. Our God-given choice.

True Believer says:

11:12am | 01/12/10

Tedd:

I am not denigrating them I am stating the truth about their situation. I do not gloat or denigrate. There, but for the Grace of God go I.

I too was spiritually ignorant for many years. I know their plight and I truly empathise with them. They are missing out on the best part as I also did.

As for my metaphorical use of the limpet to illustrate how I perceive their plight that was not meant to denigrate. It seems to me that so many unbelievers who post on these pages cling desperately to what they have been taught by other people, can observe, can understand - as a limpet clings for dear life to the rock in the ocean so people without the Rock of Ages cling to their own understanding and its limitations. It takes a degree of spiritual courage to make the leap of faith. Limpets do not have that capacity as far as we know, but we do.  So many unbelievers seem determined to cling to their own understanding, that is the sad part.  As I have said many times, I understand, I too have clung to the perishable before the Lord showed me the imperishable. 

We cannot understand God - if we could He would not be God.  All we can do is accept Him and His Word - then our spiritual eyes are opened. 

First though we have to acknowledge our need of Him. He will not intrude, “I stand at the door and knock,” Jesus said. It is up to us to open that door. Our God-given choice.

Tedd says:

11:46am | 01/12/10

TB, invoking the Grace of God does not justify your piety or pride.

Elphaba says:

11:48am | 01/12/10

@Morning TB

You claim to simply be speaking the truth when denigrating atheists for their ‘spiritual ignorance’, yet when an atheist expresses questions about your belief in the supernatural, they’re being spiteful.

And you’ve called me spiteful in the past, you know you have.

It’s the same thing!  The SAME criticism!  Your total, utter hypocrisy astounds me.  I don’t care how religious you are, it can’t change your hyprocrisy.  You can’t possibly know where every atheist is coming from, just as an atheist cannot understand where every religious person comes from.  We are the sum total of our experiences, and for you to pigeon-hole every atheist is like me saying “all Catholics are paedophiles.”  It’s a long bow to draw.

You want to know why atheists get annoyed at the believers?  This, right here, is it.  The hypocrisy you embody by saying that you can call the atheists ignorant and it’s ok, but if someone questions your faith, they’re the bigot.

Shame.

True Believer says:

01:44pm | 01/12/10

Elphaba:

I thought we had sorted that “spiteful” comment out, the fact you still allow it to irk you is disappointing. I apologise, it was not meant to injure, it was the way your comments appeared to me. My perception of posts is not infallible any more than yours is.

Spiritual ignorance is not an insult it is a fact - if you are not spiritually aware (and I have consistently said that I have been in that situation, so it is a state of being which I am familiar) you are ignorant of what spirituality is about.  That is a truth, not an insult. My spiritual awareness did not come through any cleverness of mine I assure you. It is a gift from the Lord which I chose to accept.  Then I became spiritually aware to His Truth. Then I read His Word.

In any case the comment you quote was an observation of what you had said in the post not a comment on you as a person. Unlike your willingness to categorise me as a hypocrite because I do not agree with you.  Your insult is meant to injure and that surely unworthy of you.

You are quite correct, I do not know where every atheist is coming from, but they hold a common belief - to them there is no God.  Conversely atheists have limited knowledge of where all Christians are coming from - we have many diverse ways of worship, but we serve a common Lord, that is, Jesus. If you read the posts written by many atheists they are full of myths and over-generalizations perhaps based on personal experience which of course is subjective.  Whilst castigating Christians for “pushing their beliefs down their throats” as some claim they endeavour to push their lack of belief down the throats of others by setting themselves up on matters of which they have little or no knowledge.

I have no problem with people disagreeing with my faith in Jesus, that is their God-given choice. He did not make us to be robots following the one way of thinking without question, He did however, call us to serve only Him as God. Some of us heed that call, some reject it. I believe there is a time when He will reach out to each person - I guess I am trying to encourage people not to shut the door in His face when He does.

Also people do not need to be so rude when they disagree. Comments about fairies, fairy stories, being nuts,  being rigid in our thinking etc etc abound in the posts from Atheists on these pages. Can they only justify their lack of belief by tearing at the faith of another? Says more about where they are coming from than it does about the faith of the other.

I hope this helps you to understand where I am coming from and why it is difficult to hold a civil discussion with some, not all, atheists. Whilst mockery and scoffing are their main weapons it is not possible.

On the plus side at least even the rude ones are not indifferent and that has to be a plus.

Tedd:

That is your opinion my friend, only that and you are entitled to it. :0)

True Believer says:

01:44pm | 01/12/10

Elphaba:

I thought we had sorted that “spiteful” comment out, the fact you still allow it to irk you is disappointing. I apologise, it was not meant to injure, it was the way your comments appeared to me. My perception of posts is not infallible any more than yours is.

Spiritual ignorance is not an insult it is a fact - if you are not spiritually aware (and I have consistently said that I have been in that situation, so it is a state of being which I am familiar) you are ignorant of what spirituality is about.  That is a truth, not an insult. My spiritual awareness did not come through any cleverness of mine I assure you. It is a gift from the Lord which I chose to accept.  Then I became spiritually aware to His Truth. Then I read His Word.

In any case the comment you quote was an observation of what you had said in the post not a comment on you as a person. Unlike your willingness to categorise me as a hypocrite because I do not agree with you.  Your insult is meant to injure and that surely unworthy of you.

You are quite correct, I do not know where every atheist is coming from, but they hold a common belief - to them there is no God.  Conversely atheists have limited knowledge of where all Christians are coming from - we have many diverse ways of worship, but we serve a common Lord, that is, Jesus. If you read the posts written by many atheists they are full of myths and over-generalizations perhaps based on personal experience which of course is subjective.  Whilst castigating Christians for “pushing their beliefs down their throats” as some claim they endeavour to push their lack of belief down the throats of others by setting themselves up on matters of which they have little or no knowledge.

I have no problem with people disagreeing with my faith in Jesus, that is their God-given choice. He did not make us to be robots following the one way of thinking without question, He did however, call us to serve only Him as God. Some of us heed that call, some reject it. I believe there is a time when He will reach out to each person - I guess I am trying to encourage people not to shut the door in His face when He does.

Also people do not need to be so rude when they disagree. Comments about fairies, fairy stories, being nuts,  being rigid in our thinking etc etc abound in the posts from Atheists on these pages. Can they only justify their lack of belief by tearing at the faith of another? Says more about where they are coming from than it does about the faith of the other.

I hope this helps you to understand where I am coming from and why it is difficult to hold a civil discussion with some, not all, atheists. Whilst mockery and scoffing are their main weapons it is not possible.

On the plus side at least even the rude ones are not indifferent and that has to be a plus.

Tedd:

That is your opinion my friend, only that and you are entitled to it. :0)

Elphaba says:

02:09pm | 01/12/10

@TB, the spiteful comment doesn’t irk me, but referring to atheists as spiritually ignorant and limpets does. 

It’s hypocritical.  It’s not the differing beliefs that make it difficult for atheists and believers to have a civil discussion, it is the blatent hypocrisy, and the belief that if you say the things you say whilst invoking God’s name, it somehow makes it ok.

It doesn’t.  Sure, it’s probably not a nice thing to call you a hypocrite, but if you want to catagorise me and others, then fair’s fair.

Elphaba says:

02:18pm | 01/12/10

@TB, I wouldn’t call you a hypocrite if I didn’t think you were one.  Just as you wouldn’t call me a limpet if you thought I was one.  So… what exactly is the difference between your name-calling and my name-calling?

There is none.  You just think there is.

True Believer says:

03:04pm | 01/12/10

Elphaba:

Right I am listening. You tell me how a person who rejects that God exists can have a spiritual awareness of Him??  I am only too happy to hear your side.

On the limpet, I have already explained that in another post, it was merely a metaphor - if one clings to something and will not let go isn’t that being limpet-like. I know I am limpet-like in clinging to my Lord.

There is a difference between commenting negatively on a person’s posts and an attack on them as a person. If I have appeared to attack personally it was not intended.

I am sure many of you are all really great people, just very fervent in your unbelief and perhaps some could cool their insults. That would be nice.

Instead of attacking Christianity why not discuss on what truths you base your unbelief. Put your case. If it is a strong case then atheists have no need to stoop to deriding Christians.

True Believer says:

03:04pm | 01/12/10

Elphaba:

Right I am listening. You tell me how a person who rejects that God exists can have a spiritual awareness of Him??  I am only too happy to hear your side.

On the limpet, I have already explained that in another post, it was merely a metaphor - if one clings to something and will not let go isn’t that being limpet-like. I know I am limpet-like in clinging to my Lord.

There is a difference between commenting negatively on a person’s posts and an attack on them as a person. If I have appeared to attack personally it was not intended.

I am sure many of you are all really great people, just very fervent in your unbelief and perhaps some could cool their insults. That would be nice.

Instead of attacking Christianity why not discuss on what truths you base your unbelief. Put your case. If it is a strong case then atheists have no need to stoop to deriding Christians.

Elphaba says:

03:33pm | 01/12/10

@TB, the onus is not on the non-believer to prove God.  The onus is on the believer.  And the proof or disproof of God is not what we’re talking about here, since you and I both know that neither of us can prove the argument definitively.

No, really.  We can’t.

Perhaps what we need is a change in terminology.  I object to the use of the word ‘ignorance’.  I don’t believe in God - that doesn’t make me ignorant.  In fact, I make it a point to research anything, extensively, before making a decision on it, because the last thing I want to be perceived as is someone who has ignorantly judged someone/something, without at least attempting to walk a mile in their shoes.

Of course, being human, I don’t always get it right.  For example, I’m pretty sure I don’t need to try skydiving to find out whether I’ll hate it or not, because I’m pretty sure I will.  That could be perceived as being ignorant, and fair enough - whatever.  But the fact that I have decided not to ascribe myself to a spiritual calling doesn’t make me ignorant.  I am aware that there is such a thing as spirituality.  But no matter how hard I close my eyes and wish to believe in God, I can’t just make it happen.  That’s because fundamentally, faith is a need, not a want.  I don’t need it.  Outwardly, I live my life like any other decent, God-fearing individual.  I just don’t go to Church or Bible study, wear a cross, etc.

I gave it a good go.  I like the idea.  I like the idea of surrendering your will.  How and why I tried is irrelevant, but as I said above, you can’t make belief in God happen - and that’s because if there is a God, he chooses you, you don’t choose him.

You make it sound like those who don’t feel spirituality, in whatever form, cannot experience the wonder in the world, which is simply not true.  Ever flicked through the pages on APOD?  Whether it was a God, or a cataclysmic chemical reaction, it doesn’t matter - I still feel wonder and awe when I look at those pages, and that wonder and awe would be the same, no matter who/what had a hand in it.

You constantly talk about how you attacks aren’t intended.  But if you read back over some of the comments you’ve made, they come across as very patronising.  And people will take offence.  But you spoke your mind.  Don’t apologise.  Be proud of who you are.  Defend it.  But don’t get upset when I defend back.  I didn’t call you a hypocrite for a cheap insult, I called you one because I meant it.  If I offended you, then tough.  I spoke my mind, it’s not supposed to be pretty all the time.

Elphaba says:

03:46pm | 01/12/10

@TB, and why is it ok for you to spread your gospel, but not ok for the atheists to spread theirs?  I agree, without the name-calling, but why do you get a free pass?

And don’t quote that the Bible told you to spread it far and wide.  I mean in the simple terms - what makes me voicing my opinion wrong, and yours right?

If your argument is strong enough, you have nothing to worry about

True Believer says:

04:22pm | 01/12/10

Elphaba: Thank you for your replies. On the last one first. I do not spread the gospel in its fullness, I tell you what I believe and know.  If you read the posts over time from unbelievers I think you will see that Christians certainly do not get a free pass here.

You have every right to voice your opinion absolutely, but to also acknowledge that is all it is - your opinion. 

My beliefs are based on more than that, it is not an opinion it is a knowledge that transcends the wisdom of the world. Not because I am clever, I hasten to add. One does not have to be clever by worldly terms to be right about God. He is is not blown away by human wisdom He comes to those who humble themselves, repent and accept Him as Lord and Saviour.  Nothing clever about that as the world sees it, but I am not interested in pleasing the world. I desire to live as He wants me to. I hasten to add I fall short of that in so many ways, but His love is unconditional. I cannot earn it, I cannot get it at a university, I cannot buy it, I cannot demand it. It is a free gift given by His grace.

On your second post. I am not sure that is a very sound position for your unbelief that the believer has to “prove” God. I am not sure what your notion of God is, but He is not so small a human mind can “prove” Him. That is a nonsense. If He was so small to be comprehended by our puny minds He would not be God. A god who could be proven by me would be not be God at all.

We will dump the word “ignorant” as it offends you. Unaware perhaps would be better terminology.

It is a very good thing that you research everything thoroughly, but I guess it is coming to the acceptance that there are some things that are beyond our research and knowledge. I am not denigrating human knowledge. It is an amazing and wonderful thing. Much has led to an improvement in our lives at the human level.

The difference between where we are coming from is that I have been where you stand in unbelief. I took the leap of faith and have never looked back in terms of knowing who I am in Him.

Oh I have always had an appreciation for the wonders of the world, especially the natural wonders. The difference is now I acknowledge He who created it all. That has only enhanced my appreciation a thousandfold.

If you really yearn to know Him tell HIm. To know HIm is an adventure like no other.  You will never regret it. I guess all I ask is please do not judge the Lord by His people, or those who claim to be His people.  We all let Him down because we are not perfect only He is.

I wish you well. Thank you again for your replies.

acotrel says:

09:03am | 01/12/10

Trjn, it’s all about control and manipulation!  Power is based on it, and eventually the dollar bottom line raises its ugly head.

DG says:

09:11am | 01/12/10

I’m not sure that I could turn to an organisation that has a track record of protecting persons suspected of (and convicted of) child sex offences, support of slavery, support of execution for heresy other equally abominable behaviour.

I hasten to draw a distinction between things done by persons who happen to hold a particular world view and those who, as apparent leaders of that world view, in the name of that world view.

Perhaps it’s best that we don’t tell people what to think, but teach them how to think.

acotrel says:

08:46am | 01/12/10

Tess, I worked for many years as a scientist in a defence area.  A knowledge of ethics is important in our modern world, ignorance is dangerous.

Tess says:

09:26am | 01/12/10

Acotrel I agree with you completely.  As a secular humanist I would LOVE for ethics to be taught in schools, and for children to learn to examine an issue from various viewpoints rather than “you’ll go to hell if you do that”. 

So many parents expect schools to teach their kids everything, including values, that if schools don’t teach ethics nobody will and we end up with packs of selfish little turds with no sense of community.

Despite being an atheist I wholeheartedly follow the value frequently ascribed only to Christianity of “do unto others.”  My own ethical dillema, therefore, is that if I don’t want scripture taught in schools I can’t insist that ethics be taught either.

Real Deal says:

11:24am | 01/12/10

You should be more on top of the debate David LD. The classes are not “in place” of SRE but a compliment to them. Even the minister and Dr Longstaff say so.

But hey don’t let the facts get in the way etc, etc.

David LD says:

01:08pm | 01/12/10

@Real Deal
But don’t you see? This “trial” is just the beginning. If we allow children the option to choose between ethics and religion, we might end up with no kids being taught religion in schools at all!

/Obvious sarcasm is obvious, I hope.

It’s just more moralistic panic from a social conservative lobby group that gets far too much exposure for the nation’s good. I’m happy for them to have their god, but as soon as they start pressuring politicians to legislate on behalf of their god, or indoctrinate youth, that’s when I start having trouble with their position.

DG says:

09:20am | 01/12/10

I read a good suggestion that instead of attending SRE and learning about the magic of God, children should have the option of leaning about the magic of Penn and Teller, Houdini and other greats.

Since it’s not relevant to curriculum I can’t see why the SRE groups would have a problem with it. No child would be disadvantaged by attending SRE, and the other children could be entertained and educated about deception.

Real Deal says:

11:32am | 01/12/10

Seano you should come to my kids public school from about the third week of November. They spend the last month of school doing nothing but sitting around, in the library watching DVDs and colouring in.

The teachers force them to do that because they give up on teaching for the last few weeks of school. Amusingly it seems the only structured lesson they are getting at the moment is 35 minutes of SRE each week.

No one is getting their knickers in a twist about kids doing nothing in the library. Yet my kids are doing nothing. Perhaps Dr Longstaff can design a course for the last 4 weeks of school. Or is the whol efuss about something more than kids having unstructured time?

Seano says:

02:02pm | 01/12/10

Real Deal - as a casual teacher I’d be surprised if that happened anywhere I’ve been and I’ve taught at a lot of schools in Sydney. If your kids are being short changed like this then I suggest you get off your arse and talk to the teachers and principal at the school. If you receive no satisfaction from the school then approach the DET.

As for SRE being structure. Bullshit. I have to sit in on these “lessons” often as the SRE teachers are not cleared for child safety. They are invariable taught by and unprepared grumpy old codger who rambles on about God and stuff and says things to the kids like “God made a perfect world and the reason it’s a mess is because YOU are all sinners”.

Regardless, if you want your kids to be immersed in this bunkum then that’s your problem. My issue is with A) the rule that kids not attending SRE are NOT allowed to be taught anything only supervised, that was until Ethics classes were introduced. And B) the pigheadedness evil behind stopping kids who weren’t going to SRE from attending quality lessons that are integrated with Literacy and HSIE that help develop the children’s sense of civic efficacy.

CS says:

10:01am | 03/12/10

So, there is something intrinsically ethical about forcing kids who have opted out of SRE into taking state sponsored ethical training?

acotrel says:

10:10am | 01/12/10

Matt, would you want a surgeon messing with your internals, whose only knowledge of right or wrong was taught to him by his parents?  He could steal your organs and sell them.  His mummy wouldn’t have warned him not to do that!

Matt says:

11:32am | 01/12/10

acotrel, your leap of illogic astounds me. Do you even bother reading what you write before hitting the ‘submit’ button? If your ‘mummy’ didn’t teach you not to steal, then I feel sorry for you (and your grasp of ethics).

Peter says:

09:47am | 02/12/10

Not based on fact? Seriously, have you read it? Have you looked into the historical, cultural and political accuracy of the books of the Bible? If you have, you would not be saying this. If you haven’t, I encourage you to do so before criticizing. I thought the ‘rationalists’ were interested in fact, not fiction.

Steely Dan says:

12:30pm | 02/12/10

@ Peter

“Not based on fact? Seriously, have you read it?”
Let’s do it together.  We’ll start with Genesis - no, six-day creation didn’t happen.  Take a peek at Exodus - no historian with half a brain believes that the exodus actually happened.  The OT’s not off to a great start…

Jim says:

09:59am | 01/12/10

Not sure Ad1…the Bible - well, the stack of writings lumped together in the Dark Ages, carefully edited to give ultimate power to the Church - is a pretty horrific read. Murder, genocide, infanticide, incest, war, torture…all in the name of a God.
But actions speak louder than words, so they say, and there have been some truly evil acts made in the name of the two man Gods that dominate todays religions.
Ethics…bahhh. It’s all about power and money.

DG says:

10:02am | 01/12/10

If one read the old testament it is readily apparent that God he doesn’t have any morals. He is a jealous beast who tortures and torments those who do not submit to his will. Minor infractions are treated with grossly excessive punishments. Blind devotion is rewarded (see the Story of Abraham) as is the sacrificing of others (see Lot offer up his daughters rather than stand alone to defend what he believes to be right). Yet any action that questions his authority is punished with death (Consider Onan’s punishment for his refusal to impregnate his brothers widow after God killed Onan’s brother for being wicked).

I appreciate that these are old testament and that, if we believe in the Trinity, God accepted the error of his ways when he returned as Jesus. But, at best God’s morality comes from trial and error. It’s certainly not divine from the beginning.

Kate says:

11:20am | 01/12/10

God doesn’t *get* ethics - he *is* ethics.  If God says something is good, it is good because God says it is. 

The obvious circularity of this argument may help explain why the xtian lobby is so desparately fighting to avoid children being exposed to anything which might lead them to actually *think* about morality, as opposed to being indoctrinated by religion.

Dan says:

10:50am | 01/12/10

Its the funding, its only ever been about the funding. ACCESS Ministries in VIC receive many millions a year from the government to host indoctrination clasees in schools. They are afraid the money will dry up and this is their best argument they have come up with, attack the alternative!

Real Deal says:

11:39am | 01/12/10

Dan could you give us all a bit of info about Access Ministries and their funding? It sounds outrageous if it is true. I didn’t know that they were arguing this case.

Dan says:

12:26pm | 01/12/10

Hi Real Deal - ACCESS Ministries put out a financial statement every year, just go find it on their website. They get 5.5 million dollars a year from tax payers to go into our schools and indoctrinate.

Peter says:

09:51am | 02/12/10

@DG yeah, God is really very un-PC isn’t he. lol. Not a tame god who bends to human will. Let’s face it, he wouldn’t be God if he submitted himself to a think-tank of human ignorance.

Real deal says:

11:42am | 01/12/10

Jayne I teach scripture and I allow and even encourage critical thinking. I do not shove ideads down kids throats but let them ask questions and I tryu and answer them. Of course I tell them what I believe is true but I don’t know any teacher of whatever philosophy would teach something they they didn’t believe was true - even ethics.

Freddie says:

12:32pm | 01/12/10

Telling children what you believe is true and appraisal of beliefs are quite different teaching and learning styles.

Real Deal says:

11:48am | 01/12/10

Your tarring everyone with a pretty broad brush there, Real dave. I doubt Mr Hutt is a catholic. There are plenty of very conservative Christians that do not agree with the Pope’s view on contraception and STD prevention. I belong to a church that has had for years very vigorous Child Protection Regulations that do not sweep anything or anyone under the carpet.

So glad you are helped by the modern education and legal system. Much of it has come out of Judea/Christian ethics…

Steely Dan says:

12:38pm | 01/12/10

@ Real Deal

“So glad you are helped by the modern education and legal system. Much of it has come out of Judea/Christian ethics…”
Which bits? 

The legal system that we have comes from the British tradition that underwent massive (secular) reform during the enlightenment.  Our legal system certainly does come from a mainly Christian country, but the system is just as ‘Christian’ as it is ‘white’.

A Dose of Reality says:

08:34pm | 01/12/10

Real Deal>

A common mistake - often quoted when bereft of real argument.

The origin of the legal system in England is complex and based on Nordic/Germanic traditions - affected by Roman principles and procedure and the establishment of a mechanism to relieve an absolute monarch of responsibility given critical mass obstacles.

The introduction of superstition into this system is only to ensure that witness was truthful, given the fear the church enjoyed during a time of illiteracy and ignorance. 

The European system of justice might be traced back to the “law” of the inquisition - if not for the fact Napoleon originated it.

Real Deal says:

12:04pm | 01/12/10

“whatever is contained in the ethics classes it will be a far better use of my kids time than religious studies.”

You didn’t mean that did you loxy?  So whatever the content, no matter what they teach, you don’t mind?  That is the sort of scrutiny we all want mate: - “I don’t care what it is,  as long as it’s not that”.

DG says:

01:12pm | 01/12/10

I think that Loxy was making the point, and correct me if I am wrong, that if you are going to be teaching the children lies - its doesn’t really matter what the alternative is, it can’t be any less worthwhile.

Loxy is simply saying that both the truth and fairy tales are fair and reasonable alternatives to religious education. 

I would suggest that teaching children how to think is preferable to teaching them what to think.

A Dose of Reality says:

08:23pm | 01/12/10

DG, obviously you are correct in your interpretation, which is the same as anyone who was fluent in English would also arrive at - of course unless that person was totally incapable of reading in context or open thought.

Reeal Deal. Read the article again (you know - find out what the markings mean) you’ll find that your retort can be more accurately be applied to the author.

Real deal says:

11:50am | 01/12/10

Steely Dan,

Why don’t you just write Hutt’s next article for him, as you seem to know what his hidden agenda is.

Steely Dan says:

01:03pm | 01/12/10

@ Real Deal

“Why don’t you just write Hutt’s next article for him, as you seem to know what his hidden agenda is.”
I agree, my suggested text was far more succinct.

TheRealDave says:

10:46am | 01/12/10

“I also fully expect that once the ACL read the comments on here, they will send an ACL wide email around in order to have their flock post in support of the article, just as they do with every ACL initiated pro-net filter piece. “

Bring em on.

Once they can figure out how to turn a computer on and get a 14 year old to navigate to the Punch website that is….

Dan says:

10:55am | 01/12/10

ACCESS ministries received in excess of $5.5 million in government funding during 2009 (2008: $4.1 million), with just under $5.1 million received from the Federal Government (2008: $3.7 million). Grants from the State Government increased marginally to $454,091 (2008: 434,600).

Need we really respond to the diversion tactics here?

Steven Spicer says:

10:54am | 01/12/10

Pseudoacademics have always loved to get their teeth into debates that have the slightest hint of ethical flavour. This has been happening for ever. The round eternal of debating ethical pros and cons seems to be exactly that; eternal.

Fortunately, it will not last forever. A resource called the Bible clearly outlines that all of this rubbish will meet its end. It also provides a timeless ethical base that our country has been founded upon. Who are we to even begin to entertain the idea that what we can come up with will supercede our Creator’s.

I agree wholeheartedly with David Hutt’s article. But, there should be no need to explore other ethical horizons or even replace Christian scriptural studies with something “worthwhile”. We already have it, lock,stock and barrel. No need for any indoctrination. This doesn’t come fro our Creator,only come from fellow human beings who think they know better.
B.I.B.L.E. - Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth.

Zeta says:

11:00am | 01/12/10

@ L. The ACL are the fat spoiled children at the birthday party of life - they get to have their cake and eat it to, and then they vomit bile at anyone who tells them they’ve eaten too much.

That’s why when you go to a fundamentalist Christian’s house they always have those plastic covers on the couches.

kate says:

11:50am | 01/12/10

@Stephen “.I.B.L.E. - Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth.”

More like “Bloodthirsty, Inconsistent, and Blatantly Lacking in Ethics”

Real Deal says:

11:55am | 01/12/10

Really Zeta,

You ought to use a mauve coloured font, your prose is so purple!

I am a bit of a fundy myself and darn it my jolly comfotable old chesterfield is leather - not a plastic cover in site!

You really should get out more often.

All the cool kids are going to hell says:

12:09pm | 01/12/10

Steven Spicer, you’re funny .

“Pseudoacademic….......is that someone who pretends to use rational argument and/or scientific method to make deductions? Which bits of the bible should I follow, I am a bit of a leviticus fan and plan to smote my wife for wearing 2 types of cloth not to mention anyone who suffers the touch of the swine!! Bring back the death penalty for bacon eaters I say

Trjn says:

10:56am | 01/12/10

In that case, shouldn’t both SRE and Ethics be removed from the curriculum? Seeing as Ethics is only being taught to students who opt out of the SRE.

Kate says:

11:01am | 01/12/10

@Nat It’s not “meddling with children’s moral codes”, it’s teaching kids to think.  Prime teacher jurisdiction.

Steely Dan says:

11:05am | 01/12/10

@ Nat

“Teachers have no place meddling with children’s moral codes.”
We’re talking about opt-in classes, Nat.  If you’re saying that no school time should be taken for SRE or ethics (or David Hutt’s preferred alternative to SRE, Thumb-Twiddling), you may have a point.  But if parents want to have their kids taught Ethics or What God Says, they clearly have the right to send their kids to these classes.
This isn’t about the state dictating what or how kids think about right and wrong, it’s about parents authorising a visiting non-state teacher to come and talk to their kids.  In fact, it’s the kids who do not attend SRE or ethics will spend the most time under the control of state employees.

MrMac says:

11:09am | 01/12/10

Teachers have to diminish unruly behaviour for safety’s sake and to maximise efficient use of everyone’s time at school.  They also have to compensate for parents who can’t thru mental illness, alcoholism, etc.

It takes a community to raise a child, not just parents.

Elphaba says:

11:19am | 01/12/10

Whilst I agree in principle, the only reason these thigs come up is because of group of parents out there that raise snot-nosed little ferals with no moral code.

*sigh*, it’s the arseholes ruining it for the rest of us, basically…

Jurimi says:

11:25am | 01/12/10

And so we should abolish SRE. That’s a fair bit of meddling right there…

kate says:

03:02pm | 01/12/10

Exactly!  It’s way more complicated than “Do as you’re told or you’ll go to hell”.

This is exactly why it is valuable to teach kids ethics, philosophy, critical thinking

DG says:

01:25pm | 01/12/10

Craig -

I think that you make a good point.

There is no reason that a particular student would not benefit from both being educated in the belief of the religion of their choice (as distinct form being taught that it is true)* and being educated in critical thinking.

However, an ethics class does not conflict with an education in critical thinking - it is simply teaching children that they can be good without god. That their idea of “what is good?” can be developed from sources without the need to fear eternal damnation.

In particular, students should learn that one can read the bible and take a ‘moral from the story’, without having to believe that any part of the story is true. They can appreciate Christian philosophy as distinct from the dogma of that religion. Equally they can derive ideas from Confucianism, Islam and other religions, or schools of thought such as utilitarianism. Hopefully both the theist and atheist alike can appreciate the flaws in ethical relativism.

* consider you can teach “Christians believe in Noah’s Ark”. Those who self report, or are told that they are Christian, are getting one message, while the rest are getting another message. We can equally teach that “Muslims believe that Mahmood was a prophet who spoke the words of God, who also spoke to Abraham”. Neither is a claim of fact, only of belief - and their teaching can be of value to all students.

iansand says:

02:19pm | 01/12/10

Christianity of the Sermon on the Mount variety is a damn fine way to live your life. It deserves a place in any ethics class. The imprimatur of a deity does not make it any finer, or less fine.

kate says:

02:52pm | 01/12/10

@Craig, it’s not an ad hominem, it’s an assessment based on comments made by the religious lobby in opposition to the ethics trial.

Nor is Nick’s comment a “non sequester” (sic).  It is reasonable to assume that ethics opponents are saying SRE does not teach ethics - otherwise why would they claim their kids are missing out? 

If you want your kids to learn about Jesus, take them to Sunday school, and stop wasting my kids’ time by taking up an hour of valuable class time. 

If you want your kids to learn ethics, either teach them ethics in SRE (which you are already allegedly doing - or if you’re not, St James have offered their curriculum so you can), or opt out of SRE and take ethics class.  If you don’t like that, send them to a private school (preferably not funded by my taxes, but that’s another argument).

The school curriculum is full of choices - there’s not time to do everything.  You have to choose French or German if they’re both scheduled at the same time.  You have to choose softball or cricket if they’re both played at the same time.  That’s life.  At the moment our kids have to choose between religious indoctrination and colouring in: that’s unacceptable in a public school.

Freddie says:

06:19am | 02/12/10

Craig, with respect, your daughter probably does not need to do SRE as she is probably well versed in RE.

Seano says:

02:10pm | 01/12/10

You conclusion is wrong. I hope that clears things up for you.

Tedd says:

03:46pm | 01/12/10

Secular means ‘of this time or age’, or ‘of this world’.

Thus, secular ethics are all encompassing, and ought not be “being true to yourself”, but being true to the collective - the community or the society.

acotrel says:

04:03pm | 01/12/10

Pete, the next time you visit your doctor, ask him about the ethics of the medical profession. It’s prbably the most worked over aspect of the discipline.

acotrel says:

04:09pm | 01/12/10

MIchelleC there is an age related problem in all of this.  Young people of age less than a bout 35, are typically living in a world where every issue is black and white.  After that age they’ve usually had enough bumps to moderate their thinking and recognise the shades of grey.  The proposition that ethics can be an excuse for a lassez fair approach to life, is as absurd as saying only the religous can be ‘good’ people.

Chris L says:

11:11pm | 01/12/10

You’re in luck Craig. If you want your child to be taught a religion, any religion, there are plenty that will teach them for free on Sundays, Saturdays, after school. Rejoice that it is easier to arrange indoctrination for your child than to arrange education!

Kristian says:

10:54am | 02/12/10

You haven’t actually read the Bible, have you?

P. Darvio says:

11:55am | 02/12/10

Quote: You haven’t actually read the Bible, have you?

Answer: I also demand we teach children even more Christian Ethics and Morals including the other 242 Bible Commandments which includes:

Don’t let cattle graze with other kinds of Cattle (Leviticus 19:19)

Don’t have a variety of crops on the same field. (Leviticus 19:19)

Don’t wear clothes made of more than one fabric (Leviticus 19:19)

Don’t cut your hair nor shave. (Leviticus 19:27)

Psychics, wizards, and so on are to be stoned to death.  (Leviticus 20:27)

If a priest’s daughter is a whore, she is to be burnt at the stake.  (Leviticus 21:9)

People who have flat noses, or is blind or lame, cannot go to an altar of God (Leviticus 21:17-18)

Anyone who curses or blasphemes God, should be stoned to death by the community.  (Leviticus 24:14-16)

A recent US survey showed Atheists know more about the Bible than Christians. Time for more Sunday School I think…..

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/28/us/28religion.html

True Believer says:

05:48pm | 02/12/10

So you read parts of the Old Testament - the Jewish Law.  Did you get as far as the New Testament? That is the part which talks about Jesus and which contains the Gospels and teachings which Christians follow.

Kristian says:

10:58am | 02/12/10

In South Australia, police checks are mandatory for anyone who works with children, and all volunteers in schools and the Lutheran church are also required to attend ChildSafe training before they’re able to work with kids too. I’d very very surprised if this situation was any different in NSW.

Kristian says:

10:53am | 02/12/10

Way to generalise….with an attitude like that, I bet your kids are a joy to teach.

Barry says:

08:47pm | 06/12/10

Just because there are no moral absolutes does not mean all viewpoints are necessarily equally valid.

Assuming that non-Christian ethics must mean moral relativism is simply thoughtless.

True Believer says:

12:36pm | 14/12/10

Greg Kasarik:

A thoughtful post but restricted by your secular thinking and lack of understanding of the Christian message.

Surely Jesus commandments to “you shall love your neighbour as yourself” and “to do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” are timeless and without peer in any ethical considerations, writings or teachings. Of course the over all message of the Bible and the greatest commandment is “you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your mind and with all your soul” - which so many sadly reject.

We are paying the price as a civilization in the western world for this rejection.

I can haz opinion says:

03:54pm | 03/02/11

I couldn’t read thru all the posts but Greg’s is the wildest I read. I’m not sure what faith you consider yourself to be, but you have completely misunderstood the bible and most other things you mentioned. My and your confusion is not surprising considering you both implicitly claim to have a superiour understanding of ‘the Christian message’ and also claim to have no understanding of it within the same post.

There’s also a lot of posts that are just attacking a single premise or statement of another without offering anything constructive to the initial question. I’m doing a bit of criticising but moreso adding what I think is constructive feedback (not beeing too relativist there I hope?).

I’m seeing a lot of critisism of Judeo-Christian ideology’s position as the base or root of our society’s moral system. Most of this appears to be around the ‘Golden Rule’ being spoken by Jesus but Greek philosopher’s coming up with it around 500 years (that was the figure I read above) earlier, therefore ~500BC. The thing with that is that Jesus was clarifying God’s law that had been given to the Jews previously. The most notable tabulation of this law was during the Exodus, which was around 1446BC (thanx Google). And even if a philosopher has a published articulation of ethics or morality from earlier than the Hebrews, it just suggests that following God and pro-social ethics have similar rationalle. And so a philosopher correctly observed some social dynamics? Is that not just complementary to a view that God designed that organism and gave instruction accordingly?

Secondly the commandment to love God above all is not out of place in the ‘golden rule’. The bible explicity states that those who love God will love their neighbour, and much of the moral teaching of the bible is just expanding on this. The idea is that Love comes from God, we receive it, pass it on. The other idea there is that we are not God, so we are not to think ourselves better than others, and also that we are saved by grace, so we have nothing to boast over and should treat others graceously.
You will note many examples of Christians failing at these things (I’m one) - that is because all Christians are human, and also because many use the title without having the heart.
‘Act with Empathy’ cannot replace the ‘Golden Rule’ because if you look at the way empathy works (see psych. lit.) you’ll find that your theory of other is derived from your theory of self.

The premises of ethics are values - and what decides which things are more or less valuable? Innevitably these classes will just enforce what is currently popular or what the teacher thinks - hence the point of the title.
This is also because when you put an ethical question into a scenario, as is happening in these classes, it begs the question. It begs the question ‘Is this right or wrong?’ Whether implicitly or explicitly some conclusion will be internalised, and it won’t just be gaining critical thinking as a tool. Unfortunately if you are teaching children not to make moral decisions but instead just think about how you might think about it, you run the risk that they may just learn to contemplate and postulate in place of doing what they know is right. You also have to take into account the psychological development of each age group. Younger children cannot go too far beyond rote learning what is wrong and right. What we need is an integrous and accountable standard for teaching them these things. They need to be taught that there are reasons why we don’t kill, steal, etc, but also that no amount of thinking about it makes it OK to do those things. Likewise there are good things to do/ways to treat others, and there are reasons for these. And I think as critical thinkers we need better reasons than just to help us smile as the wheels turn through and beyond our years.