Revisiting Steven Weinberg's assertion

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

2Dbunk
Site Supporter
Posts: 838
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2015 1:39 pm
Location: East of Eden

Revisiting Steven Weinberg's assertion

Post #1

Post by 2Dbunk »

JAG television series (CBS’ “Judge Advocate Corps� by Donald P. Bellisario, Executive Producer – Ninth Season, Disc #5, entitled “Fighting Words,� (one hour)

IS--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

the BEST DRAMATIC PORTRAYAL OF STEVEN WEINBERG’S ASSERTION:
Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.�

Rarely are very good examples given in asserting an argument, but when presented they win the day. “Fighting Words� fits that description as the series’ protagonists Commander Harmon Rabb goes nose to nose with prosecuting attorney, USMC Colonel Sarah MacKenzie (the former defending an over-zealous two star Marine Corps general who, in military uniform, disparages Islam from the pulpit of his church’s congregation). The Colonel wins, and the general gets his hands slapped.

This is the best example that I’ve seen on screen of a good man inadvertently trying to destroy the notion that our Constitution is sincere in protecting all religious belief.

Yes, the “unmatched wisdom� of our current president has muddied the waters a bit
when he insinuates that there are “good Nazis� as well as bad; and that white supremacists might make for good neighbors. If that is the case, what was WW II all about?

Was the court decision wrong in this case? If so, can you put forward an example to counter Weinberg’s assertion? OR, another example that supports Weinberg’s assertion?

Zzyzx
Site Supporter
Posts: 25089
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 10:38 pm
Location: Bible Belt USA
Has thanked: 40 times
Been thanked: 73 times

Re: Revisiting Steven Weinberg's assertion

Post #2

Post by Zzyzx »

.
2Dbunk wrote: STEVEN WEINBERG’S ASSERTION

"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.�
I strongly disagree with the statement as being unfairly condemning of religion. People ('good' is a matter of opinion) are driven to do 'evil things' for many reasons

The primary evil-producers are, in my opinion, greed / profit / egotism / lust for power

Much or most of humanity seems inclined to follow 'leaders' -- people in (or deemed to be in) positions of authority. When the 'leaders' are motivated by such things they can often develop a loyal and/or fanatical following. Example: about a third of the US population supports Trump (a classic example of all the above) and some even speak of a civil war / armed conflict to keep him in power.
.
Non-Theist

ANY of the thousands of "gods" proposed, imagined, worshiped, loved, feared, and/or fought over by humans MAY exist -- awaiting verifiable evidence

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18070
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 19 times

Re: Revisiting Steven Weinberg's assertion

Post #3

Post by Divine Insight »

Zzyzx wrote: .
2Dbunk wrote: STEVEN WEINBERG’S ASSERTION

"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.�
I strongly disagree with the statement as being unfairly condemning of religion. People ('good' is a matter of opinion) are driven to do 'evil things' for many reasons

The primary evil-producers are, in my opinion, greed / profit / egotism / lust for power
I have rejected your argument when theists make it so I'll need to reject it when made by a non-theist as well.

Steven Weinberg never intended to suggest that religion is the only thing that can cause people to do evil things. What he said was that it take religion to make "good people" do evil things.

You used examples of greed, profit, egotism, and lust for power. But Weinberg would argue that all of those are already "evil" motivations. So "good" people would not be motivated by those evil motivations.

What Weinberg is saying is that it take religion for people to do evil things while believing that what they are doing is "right".

You could argue that some people may think that being greedy, egotistical and lusting for power and money might be considered to be "right" in their view.

But if you're going to take that position then everyone who does evil things is a "good" person if they merely believe that their evil deeds are "good".

I would concede that Weinberg's statement isn't fully correct. I do believe that there are other motivations that "good" people might have for doing evil things other than just religion.

However I do agree with Weinberg that religion has to top the list as causing the greatest number of "good" people to do evil thing.

People who do evil things for evil reasons don't apply here.
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

User avatar
JehovahsWitness
Savant
Posts: 21073
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:03 am
Has thanked: 790 times
Been thanked: 1114 times
Contact:

Re: Revisiting Steven Weinberg's assertion

Post #4

Post by JehovahsWitness »

Zzyzx wrote:
The primary evil-producers are, in my opinion, greed / profit / egotism / lust for power

And what if not religion addresses these issues? Science?


Go to other posts related to...

RELIGION, CHRISTIANITY and ...JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES
INDEX: More bible based ANSWERS
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681


"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" -
Romans 14:8

User avatar
1213
Savant
Posts: 11353
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 11:06 am
Location: Finland
Has thanked: 313 times
Been thanked: 359 times

Re: Revisiting Steven Weinberg's assertion

Post #5

Post by 1213 »

2Dbunk wrote: ...
Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.�...
I think that depends much of what the religion teaches. If the teaching is as in the Bible, love your neighbor as yourself and even love your enemies, I don’t see how it can be accused of making people evil and bad.

Zzyzx
Site Supporter
Posts: 25089
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 10:38 pm
Location: Bible Belt USA
Has thanked: 40 times
Been thanked: 73 times

Re: Revisiting Steven Weinberg's assertion

Post #6

Post by Zzyzx »

.
JehovahsWitness wrote:
Zzyzx wrote: The primary evil-producers are, in my opinion, greed / profit / egotism / lust for power
And what if not religion addresses these issues? Science?
Much of religion exemplifies these conditions rather than addressing them -- ostentatious palaces of worship, televangelists, Vatican opulence and wealth.

Religion may TALK against greed / profit / egotism / lust for power -- but what does it DO to counter them? Shake a finger at others doing the same thing?
.
Non-Theist

ANY of the thousands of "gods" proposed, imagined, worshiped, loved, feared, and/or fought over by humans MAY exist -- awaiting verifiable evidence

User avatar
JehovahsWitness
Savant
Posts: 21073
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:03 am
Has thanked: 790 times
Been thanked: 1114 times
Contact:

Re: Revisiting Steven Weinberg's assertion

Post #7

Post by JehovahsWitness »

[Replying to post 6 by Zzyzx]
JehovahsWitness wrote:
Zzyzx wrote: The primary evil-producers are, in my opinion, greed / profit / egotism / lust for power
And what if not religion addresses these issues? Science?

My question wasn't regarding the subjective question of efficacity, but rather what domain would deal with these topics. If (as I believe you have) you have identified the root cause of mankind's problems, to whom should we look for a possible solution, the scientist or those that address the subject of morals?

If toilet won't flush who do you call a plumber or a musician? Do you call a musician because you know there are bad plumbers out there?



JW
Last edited by JehovahsWitness on Wed Oct 16, 2019 12:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
INDEX: More bible based ANSWERS
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681


"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" -
Romans 14:8

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18070
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 19 times

Re: Revisiting Steven Weinberg's assertion

Post #8

Post by Divine Insight »

1213 wrote: I think that depends much of what the religion teaches. If the teaching is as in the Bible, love your neighbor as yourself and even love your enemies, I don’t see how it can be accused of making people evil and bad.
Well, Christianity is a ridiculous religion. Jesus is the one who taught that principle. Not only this but this principle goes directly against the directives and commandments of the God of the Old Testament.

So Christianity is a self-contradictory religion. Not only did Jesus teach the extreme opposite of what the OT had Yahweh teaching, but ironically the New Testament has Jesus proclaiming that not one jot or one tittle of the OT law shall pass.

This is an extreme contradiction. If Jesus had said that he came to change the law that would have been different, but he didn't, he claimed just the opposite.

So Christianity doesn't stand. In order to take the principle you have just posted you need to toss out the entire Old Testament and the God of Yahweh who was supposedly the very God that Jesus was supposed to be representing.

Christianity is an extremely self-contradictory religion that cannot possibly be true.
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18070
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 19 times

Re: Revisiting Steven Weinberg's assertion

Post #9

Post by Divine Insight »

JehovahsWitness wrote: [[url=http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 138#983138]Replying
My question wasn't regarding the subjective question of efficacity, but rather what domain would deal with these topics. If (as I believe you have) you have identified the root cause of mankind's problems, to whom should we look for a possible solution, the scientist or those that address the subject of morals?
The very concept of morality is a useless concept. It has no practical value at all. All that is required is logic. Period.

In fact, what good does it do to label someone as an "immoral person". It does absolutely no good at all. It's a totally useless concept.

All of our human concerns can be addressed using purely secular logic and ethics. No need to even invent a concept of morality. It does no one any good.

In fact, most of our laws aren't based on morality anyway. What's immoral about not paying the government property taxes for the property we live on? There's nothing immoral about not paying taxes. None the less, if you fail to pay your taxes you will suffer the consequences of the law.

So laws don't even have anything to do with morality anyway. Nor should they. Our laws aren't based on moral concepts, and therefore we don't need moral concepts to construct a meaningful society. All we need are laws. No need to judge what might be "right or wrong". The only question is whether something is legal or not.
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

User avatar
EarthScienceguy
Guru
Posts: 2192
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
Has thanked: 33 times
Been thanked: 43 times
Contact:

Re: Revisiting Steven Weinberg's assertion

Post #10

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[Replying to post 1 by 2Dbunk]

He makes an assertion that good people will do still do good but he does not define what is good.

In Nazi Germany good was killing all Jews regardless of age. At other points in history good was placing live babies in jars and then placing in the walls of your fortress. Not to many centuries ago good was owning slaves.

Who is defining "good"? This is the problem without a specific, timeless definition of what good is then good is left to be define by the most powerful men in the society and those that influence the most powerful men in said society.

Post Reply