Great piece, Justin. I find hope in your theory that the process is cyclical: Those raised in strong tradition feel secure enough to attack that tradition, while those raised in an antiseptic, atheistic wasteland yearn for the traditions their parents denied them.

The conceit of reason is that our conscious minds can fathom the mysteries of our own existence. Yet reason itself gives us no foundation for that assumption. Even if tenured researchers in white lab coats can see no reason why any person or society should need God, we may yet need Him.

In discussions of the so-called “cultural war” between religious values and secular values, neither side seems to acknowledge that was we see as positive qualities of our culture originate in both secular and religious sources. Instead each side seems to take credit for what is positive and blame the other side for society’s ills.
Justin Katz responded to my comment that belief in God was not a requirement for one to have moral direction, and not a requirement for one to sacrifice one’s life to a cause.

>>In a post from October, I suggested that a morality founded in self-interest ultimately makes it advisable at least to perpetuate a belief in God. While one can develop self-interest into a long-term community view, doing so introduces a sort of gamble whereby we acknowledge that it is in self-interest to form social covenants, pledging to sacrifice if needed, but hoping that the benefits will outweigh the sacrifices. To ensure that there are members willing to make the ultimate sacrifice, it benefits the society to cultivate an irrational (or suprarational) morality.
…
>>Few theists would discard the notion that the state (or community) can substitute for God as the "greater thing" for which people will sacrifice. Indeed, apologists often employ that very attempt as evidence that humanity requires meaning — usually adding that atheistic nationalism has claimed more lives with less humanitarian benefit than other, theistic, religions. Carvin faults religious morality for its susceptibility to multiple interpretations ("It's ALL moral relativism"), but variations of that flaw apply to nations, ethnicities, and any other basis for group identity. Worse yet, rooting morality in an extant entity, rather than a being or concept external to tangible society, merely makes morality subject to the immediate needs of that entity.

I will agree. However, it is a political reality that government leaders will define morality in order to meet their perceived interests, regardless of whether the country presents itself as secular or religious.

>>More to the point, as I put it in the above-mentioned post, a problem arises over time when more and more people figure out the game. I challenged the reader to "show me a soldier who would lay down his life in full awareness that he has merely lost the lottery in a necessary cultural illusion." It doesn't answer the challenge to cite soldiers from a mid–twentieth century culture that had simply recast that illusion in the image of ideological nationalism. Where is the non-theistic morality in a world of relativism and radical individualism that will encourage a thinking man (or woman) to lay down his life in the service of a worthwhile end?

I didn’t have to look very far to find your answer. Not having been in the military, I don’t want to presume to know who goes on inside the hearts and minds of our servicemen and women serving in Iraq. But based on what I’ve read and documentaries I’ve seen, our forces in Iraq don’t view their mission as carrying out “God’s Plan.” It is clearly George W. Bush’s plan. Our forces are fighting for the benefit of Muslims, not Christians. They are not importing Christianity to Iraq. Indeed, they are under strict orders to not disrespect the Islam religion. It is not a mission to defend the United States. Any well informed person now knows that Iraq has not posed a serious threat to the US for many years. The mission that our forces are fighting and dying for (I don’t want to get into a side Iraq debate here – I’m just describing how I believe our forces view their mission) is to free the Iraqi people of a brutal dictator and to help them set up a democratic government that will serve the best interests of its people, and be an inspiration to other people living in dictatorships.

Let’s look at democracy – it is a secular concept, not a religious one. There is nothing about democracy in Judeo-Christian scriptures. Democracy originated in ancient Greece and Rome, and was developed further with the rise of secularism in Europe and in England’s colonies in the new world, as a response to tradition power structures that used religion as a tool to control their populations. Western culture clearly contains a mix of secular and religious ideas, but democracy is of secular origin.
While the Islam religion will almost certainly play an important role in the emerging new Iraq, the other influence will one that originated in secularism.

>>Here, Carvin might retreat to the more personalized concept of "expanded self-interest" that preceded his extrapolation of self-interest to the "clan, or whatever group they belong to":

>>Self-interest is not just interest for the self. The urge to procreate extends self-interest toward our spouses and children. This is why parents willingly give up a great deal, including body organs in some cases, for the well being of their children.

>>This argument may have long historical currency, but what of a culture in which parents don't willingly give up "a great deal" for their children — to the extent of not giving them life in the first place?

Given the great lengths that infertile couples go to in their efforts to conceive, the demand for babies for adoption, and emotional bonds people feel toward pets that aren’t even human, I see the urge to procreate and raise children as an innate human drive. While the trend toward women in industrialized nations having fewer children has been well-documented, most women still find it very important to have one or two children. I think the mass-scale automated gestation process described in Huxely’s Brave New World will remain science fiction, even if the technology is developed. Kurtz’s analysis ignores the parental instincts of men and women, which have caused the failure of previous attempts to separate child rearing from parents.

>> the reconstruction of traditional activities from a position of rationalism will tend to contribute to, not merely coincide with, a religious revival. With the momentum of the nihilistic avalanche arrested, God will be found in the family.

>>Whether that proves to be the case or not, the two worldviews that begin to emerge give starkly different impressions. In my bias, the first feels involved and organic:
• Natural childbirth and appreciation for children
• Sex as a metaphysical and moral act intrinsically related to the giving of life
• Stable, married homes in which to raise those children and secure them within a family
• Single income households, lending themselves to maximal parental involvement with children
• A sense of heritage and connection with all of humanity
• Connection with the God who underlies all of the suprarational fruits of life

As I have gotten older I tend to agree with this more, with the exception that I don’t believe the last item on the first list is a requirement for the first five items.

>> I recall having those "terror jags," and my experience is that atheists don't so much "get past" them as find ways to suppress them. Sometimes several years would pass between waves of soul-deep realization about "the truth of what death means" (as I thought at the time). When realization came as a splash rather than a wave, I would induce a little fake-reflexive shiver, giving me an opportunity to laugh at my silliness and get my mind on a different track. Thus I lasted about a decade and a half on the promise that I'd just somehow find a way to accept death.

Instead of believing in an emotionally satisfying but unverifiable belief of an afterlife, I choose to accept death as an unknowable and find my satisfaction and happiness in what I’m doing in this world.

>>People who were raised with the understanding that there is — or legitimately could be — a God, build their atheism on the subconscious foundation thereby laid; moreover, they have a sense of community; their formative years were spent in a more traditional, and traditionally religious, society. People raised as atheists lack both the subconscious sense and the social experience. The appeal to the claim that, in Angier's words, "[m]atter is neither created nor destroyed, and we, as matter, will always matter, and the universe will forever be our home" cannot tap into the religious comfort of eternity because that comfort has never been experienced. The earthy scent in the graveyard doesn't evoke memories of comforting feelings; there are no memories, so the scent becomes associated with the graveyard. The child "will have none of it."

I’m not sure how I could comment. My parents were Catholic when I was very young, but stopped practicing when I was about 10 years old. My siblings and I were not taught to believe any one way or the other, but were encouraged to develop our own beliefs. There was a Bible in the house that our mother referred to so that we would understand the many biblical references in popular culture. So I don’t have the background to say that people raised to be atheists lack anything, except perhaps an easy understanding of biblical references in popular culture. What is your source that atheists raised as atheists are different from those raised in religious households?

>> What happens when there are no religious believers to whom to match morality? More importantly, what happens when the tone becomes set by those who don't care whether they're called "morally immature" any more than a desert scorpion cares about the "river of life"?

That’s why the United States has a Constitution. Our laws and lawmakers are constrained by the Constitution, which can only be amended through a process made intentionally difficult to ensure that such amendments are thoroughly thought-out and debated before they are passed. That makes more sense to me that a religious morality defined by those with the power to enforce their interpretations of religion on others.

>> Those raised in a society that sees its cultural, moral, and emotional heritage as an academic interest, and often with scorn, have no recourse to the strength that their elders in the previous generation or two don't even realize was imparted unto them.

As I said, our society and culture represents a mix of religion and secular ideas. Both deserve respect. As free people we must intelligently use what works and disregard what doesn’t work, regardless of the source.

Dan,
Take the hint. If you as a self proclaimed atheist have children and raise them as such, then what happens to them will probably be what happened to the little girl. They will not have the foundation in their lives that you had growing up. Eventually they will suppress and sublimate the terror of looking into the abyss of total dissolution. That won't mean that the terror is gone.

I don't have children, so I haven't faced the issue directly yet. At times I've thought that children should not be taught to believe that Santa Claus real, on the basis that we should not set an example of lying. But my wife feels that children take great joy and comfort in the Santa myth, and if we have children they should not be denied that.

Very well, if I decide that a belief in Santa is OK for a four-year-old, I may decide that an afterlife in heaven is OK as well. When the child is older I would then explain that heaven is a concept believed by some but not all, including myself. I consider religion (or lack thereof) to be something a person grows and matures into, and I would not discourage my children from exploring different religions and developing their own beliefs, provided that their beliefs are tolerent of those with other beleifs, or lack thereof.

I'm not a fan of George W. Bush but I respect the fact that when he talks about the religious beliefs of Americans, he always adds that some Americans have no religion at all, and that they deserve the same respect as religious Americans.

Likewise, I take offense at that view expoused by some columnists and bloggers that the people lacking religion are either inheriently less moral, or somehow a threat to society.

Here is a striking example of Justin's theory that someone denied a religious foundation in childhood will find one in adulthood: Madalyn Murray O'Hair was a notorious atheist of a previous age. Her son, William J. Murray, is now a devout Christian.

Dan,
Lest you misinterpret what I say about atheism, I do not in fact view atheism as being non-religious. I maintain that first generation atheists have just chosen a different god, a different morality. Second generation atheists... well, I don't have too much experience with those. I've never met one.

But my wife feels that children take great joy and comfort in the Santa myth, and if we have children they should not be denied that.

Thank God for your wife.

I consider religion (or lack thereof) to be something a person grows and matures into, and I would not discourage my children from exploring different religions and developing their own beliefs, provided that their beliefs are tolerent of those with other beleifs, or lack thereof.

I think you should encourage them to seek the truth. You don't want them to develop 'their own beliefs' if those beliefs are wrong, do you? (Note that I'm not saying that your beliefs, or their own, shouldn't be subjected to critical analysis - I'm just objecting to the idea that whatever beliefs they come up with is OK.)

What do you mean when you say their beliefs should be tolerant of those with other beliefs, and what is the philosophical foundation for this position?

Likewise, I take offense at that view expoused by some columnists and bloggers that the people lacking religion are either inheriently less moral, or somehow a threat to society.

The view is usually not that atheists are less moral, it is that they do not have any universal foundation for their moral values, which makes their moral values inherently relativistic. Theistic moral values may be incorrectly discerned or applied, but they are inherently grounded in the universality of the creator. I think the reason this charge infuriates so many atheists is because it is true, and they know it. As to the second point, I would say the abbatoir that we call the 20th century*, where 100 million people were killed in the name of godless ideologies, is ample reason to think atheistic belief is harmful to society.

*I'm paraphrasing Edward T. Oakes, from an essay he wrote in First Things.

One further point, Dan: look around the world today, and at world history. Have fully secular societies (if such a thing exists) ever prospered anywhere? What were the most successful cultures and societies? In the 2000 years since Christianity came along, it's incontrovertible that Christian societies have prospered more than any other. (What are the most screwed up places on the globe? The Middle East and Africa.) You have a point about secularism and theism needing to coexist properly - there are plenty of examples of what happens when religious authority and political authority are explicit conflated. But the point Justin is making is that secularism cannot survive on its own - it needs a theistic framework in order to succeed.

Dan, might I suggest you read Francis Schaeffer's book, "How Should We Then Live?". This is a timely column from Marvin Olasky on the book, and on the general subject.

Mike,

The only "universal foundations" for moral values are dictated by inherent human social dynamics, and necessary if people are to live together. Any community in which it is OK to cheat and steal from your neighbors, have sex with their wives and kill anyone who gets in your way will just end up killing itself and will not survive. Ancient cultures that did figure out how to survive and prosper developed religions that codified rules that allowed the continued survival of the culture. The basics of morality that are shared by virtually all religions (don't steal, don't randomly kill people, don't have sex with everyone you see, don't neglect your children) are simply required by human nature to retain stability in communities. Most mature non-religious people don't disagree with these.

But on top of that, many religions add a thick layer of arbitrary rules and conditions based on myth and superstition. They vary greatly between cultures/religions, and cause a great many problems. The areas of disagreement include:

1) Under exactly what circumstances is it OK to kill people?

2) How much respect are people of other religions/cultures entitled too?

3) Whether or not the Creator grants exclusive rights to particular groups to control certain areas of land.

4) How much freedom should individuals be granted to live as they wish?

The problem with the "universal foundation" concept is that many people hold on to arbitrary rules of their religion as ferverently as more universal rules that are shared my most religions.

I see secularism as an effort to drop the myth and superstition and apply rationality to apply what works for society. This includes the freedom of individuals to make their own choices, learn from their own mistakes and mature at their own speed.

Are there crackpot theories circulating within secularism? Of course there are. But that is not a reason to declare secularism morally corrupt and return to religious rule.

Regarding your second message:

>>In the 2000 years since Christianity came along, it's incontrovertible that Christian societies have prospered more than any other. (What are the most screwed up places on the globe? The Middle East and Africa.)

Actually, from 800 AD to about 1400, Europe was Christian and stagnant. Northern Africa and the Middle East were Muslim and more prosperious. It was the Age of Enlightenment, the rise of secularism and the spearation of science and intellectual thought from Church control that started the rise of the West. The Middle East is in the mess it's in largely because of strict adherance to Islam and the ability of national leaders, religious leaders, and terrorists to use Islam to control people and amass power and money for themselves. While I didn't vote for Bush, I do support the current Iraq policy because I think the introduction of the secular concept of democracy will eventually be a positive step.

While I don't think a purely secular country has ever existed (Christianity existed in the Soviet Union throughout its history), Japan is probably the closest you'll find (it certainly has very little Christian tradition), and is very prosperious.

BTW, thank you for your thought provoking questions.

"BTW, thank you for your thought provoking questions."

No problem. ;)

Actually, from 800 AD to about 1400, Europe was Christian and stagnant. Northern Africa and the Middle East were Muslim and more prosperious. It was the Age of Enlightenment, the rise of secularism and the spearation of science and intellectual thought from Church control that started the rise of the West. The Middle East is in the mess it's in largely because of strict adherance to Islam and the ability of national leaders, religious leaders, and terrorists to use Islam to control people and amass power and money for themselves. While I didn't vote for Bush, I do support the current Iraq policy because I think the introduction of the secular concept of democracy will eventually be a positive step.

Well, there's two different things to compare here: secularism vs. religion, and Islam vs. Christianity. The notion of "the Dark Ages" that you refer to is largely an invention of Enlightenment propagandists. There was plenty of development going on in Europe at the time. It also wasn't fully Christianized during all that time. Islam may have prospered during that time, but relative to what? I'd argue that the spread of monotheism, which, while containing many incorrect ideas, was closer to the truth as described in the Bible than what preceded it.

Modern science grew out of the practices of the Catholic church during the time you describe. The metaphysical foundation for doing science came from Christian theology.

It's true that separating the political and religious spheres properly was important for the development of modern political systems, but that concept is deeply embedded in Christian theology - it's just that the church became corrupted and ignored that teaching. ("Render unto God what is God's, and to Ceasar what is Ceasar's.") That's partly what the Reformation was about. Note that Islam inherently conflates political and theological power. This is a large part of the reason the Middle East has been so stagnant, I agree. But that's just an arguement in favor of Christianity, not secularism.

While I don't think a purely secular country has ever existed (Christianity existed in the Soviet Union throughout its history), Japan is probably the closest you'll find (it certainly has very little Christian tradition), and is very prosperious.

First of all, shouldn't the fact that no secular country has ever existed be a sign of something? Second, Western Europe is about as secular as you can get right now, and its future looks bleak. Not to mention the fact that it's secularism produced WW's I and II, and Communism. The European rejection of God, exemplified by the Enlightenment, has been the cause of untold misery and suffering over the past 300 years or so.

Japan is an interesting case, to be sure. It's not really secular, though - it has a strong Buddhist tradition. And modern Japan arose because we crushed them in WWII and rebuilt their society in our image. It has prospered, though, and it's not appreciably Christian, as far as I know. But we'll see how things go in the future - it's population is aging rapidly, like Europe's.

Interesting (and long!) comments. I have just a few small things to add:

1. I was raised by a preacher, and I severely resented being "lied to" about Santa Claus. My wife feels much like yours does, however. It's something of a tightwire act, i guess...

2. Trite as I know it sounds, it's perfectly fine for a believer to be wrong about Eternity --it won't matter a bit, in the end. But God help the atheist who is wrong, in the end. No living person can be 100% sure he knows the truth, but 100% of the deceased do.

3. My own personal cliche: "A man with no God thinks he IS god." Which is to say, Dan, that your answers to the 4 examples above are no less subject to your own personal myths and superstitions than anyone elses, of any particular religion. And all things being equal, a set of parameters that are culturally agreed upon will be far less dangerous and oppresive to society as a whole, than "to each his own".

Mike,

I think we agree more than we disagree. One negative fallout from the last election season was that each side formed caricature images of the other side. Kerry people tend to see Bush people as wanting to replace our constitutional system with a theocracy in which anyone not attending regular services in a Christian church is synagogue is jailed as a suspected terrorist. Bush people tend to see Kerry people as wanting to ban all mention of God from public expression, and eventually private expression as well. Neither is true.

The vast majority of Americans, religious and not, believe in following the Constitution. I see that as our moral foundation and it does not require belief in a deity (contrary to the belief of some who have not actually read the Constitution, God is not mentioned in it). As long as we continue to follow it and amend it wisely, I think we'll be OK.

Why do you think Europe's future looks bleak? I'm more worried about the US, whose President is acting like a shopoholic with a high-limit credit card. The US dollar is dropping compared to the Euro and pound, and Bush's out-of-control deficit threatens to make it worse.

Marty:

I recall number 2) from college as "Pascal's Wager." The problem is that even if you conclude that the universe and our spiritual entities were deliberately created by some sort of larger intelligence, then how do you determine which of the hundreds of religions have the right story, or even of ANY of them do?

If Protestant Christians are right, then I have to reconcile why millions of perfectly decent non-Christians would be condemned to Hell, including everyone born between Jesus and modern times who had no opportunity to become Christians due to the part of the world they happened to be born in.

But if the interpretation of "works" is right, then even atheists can go to heaven as long as they follow basic morals (don't steal, kill, or cheat on your spouse) and do some volunteer charity work.

But if Osama bin Laden is right, they we're all screwed. Or maybe the Aboriginals of Australia? Or L. Ron Hubbard?

See? That doesn't help.

3) I disagree. I don't think I'm any better than anyone else, which doesn't seem like a God-like attitude. Yes, those are my own opinions, but 97 percent of what's in this blog and other blogs are people's opinions. The fact that there are so many different religions, sects, and different scriptural interpretation proves that the vast majority of religion is also people's opinions. If that weren't true, there would only be one religion with very little disagreement over what God meant to say.

I try to make my opinions as consistent with reality and rational thought as possible. To that end I often seek out views different from mine and people to question me. If I can't adequately defend a position I take, I am forced to re-examine my own position and thought process.

Thanks folks.

"(contrary to the belief of some who have not actually read the Constitution, God is not mentioned in it)"

Why is that one of the common memes used by atheists? It conveniently overlooks the mention of God in the Declaration of Independence that gives the foundation for our unalienable rights as well as the Constitution.

On another note...

It was my understanding that the Church started out rather democratic at the outset (election of Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons) and then steered away from it when the potential for introduced heresy became untenable.

The vast majority of Americans, religious and not, believe in following the Constitution. I see that as our moral foundation and it does not require belief in a deity (contrary to the belief of some who have not actually read the Constitution, God is not mentioned in it). As long as we continue to follow it and amend it wisely, I think we'll be OK.

First of all, you may have heard of a debate about whether the Constitution is a "living document" or not. There are significant sections of our society, predominantly secular and liberal, and dominant in the academy, legal, mass media, entertainment, and government bureaucracies, who think that it is, in fact, a "living document" - i.e. it says whatever they want it to say. You're right that lots of Americans object to this, but you're underplaying the conflict that exists on the issue.

Second, how can a document written ~230 years ago be our "moral foundation"? What was the moral foundation of the men who wrote it? What is the moral foundation for non-American societies? And how do we know whether we are "amending it wisely"?

Why do you think Europe's future looks bleak?

Because they are not producing enough children. Their sclerotic bureaucracy makes the U.S. Federal bureaucracy look like a piker. They can't afford their entitlements. At least we're debating what to do about Social Security - that's a much smaller problem than what the Europeans face, and they aren't even debating it. There is rising anti-Semitism there. They've imported large numbers of Muslims because they need workers, but they haven't been assimilated into European culture. In short, they've been coasting on their Christian heritage for a few generations now, and they are now facing wrenching changes in their society: either dramatic changes in their entitlement systems, dramatic demographic changes, widespread violence, or all three. Full-scale secularism doesn't work.

Dan: "The vast majority of Americans, religious and not, believe in following the Constitution."

But they don't agree on what the Constitution is. I think that it's a specific series of words that are significant only because they were voted on by citizens or their representatives. Others seem to think that the Constitution is the free-floating spirit of justice and goodness, which can mean anything at all from one day to the next.

Dan: "Why do you think Europe's future looks bleak?"

Maybe because their birth rate has been well below replacement for decades now, they're idle in the face of a severe public-pension crisis, and they're taking in millions of Muslims without culturally assimilating them.

Re: "A man with no God thinks he IS god."

Marty is dramatizing the point, but I think what he's driving at is that you can't deduce morality solely from logic and observation. Those can only tell you how to accomplish a given goal; they can't tell you which goal you ought to try to accomplish.

For example, logic call tell you 1) to promote your own short-term comfort and happiness you should do X, 2) to help perpetuate your family you should do Y, and 3) to support your neighborhood/ city/ state/ nation you should do Z. But logic cannot tell you how much of your personal comfort you should sacrifice to perpetuate your family, or how much money you should spend on your kids versus giving it to charities. Before you can start with the observations and logic, you need some non-logical premises about what your priorities are.

Maybe you can divine a solid moral base from some aggregated principles of major world religions. I’m skeptical. Some theologian once said something along the lines of: “It is no more possible to be religious without practicing any particular religion then it is possible to speak without speaking any particular language.” In practice, those who don’t have firm foundations for their non-logical moral premises tend to define morality for their own momentary convenience—usually without even realizing that they’re doing so.

The recent US Sup Ct decision on capital punishment provides a fine example: If the Constitution is a series of specific words approved by specific people, then its meaning is fixed. The people who approved those words intended them to mean something specific. We may think that they were wrong, or even evil in what they wanted. But at least their intent as recorded at that time doesn’t change.

But most liberals don’t agree with that view. They want a living Constitution, which means that the Constitution says whatever a majority of the US Sup Ct says it says. And that majority now openly bases its decisions on however the justices feel about the issue before them. The court once felt compelled to offer extensive verbal gymnastics to explain why its most recent radical change in the law was somehow based in the Constitution’s text. Now they hardly bother. They ignore the decisions of US citizens and their elected representatives. Instead they look to foreign courts or the text of a treaty that the Senate refused to ratify. The Constitution today can mean anything at all, depending on how five politically connected lawyers feel on any given day.

My point here isn’t so much to open an argument about interpreting the Constitution. It’s to provide an example of how human nature works. Our minds don’t naturally think far into the future. We don’t often consider all the sides of complex issues. We usually act on our feelings, then justify our actions with a veneer of reason.

The logical response to this fact of human nature is to give up the idea that we can make good moral decisions from moment to moment based on some hodgepodge of generalized moral sentiments. Empirically, we know we can’t do that. We know that it doesn’t work. Instead, we should accept that we only rarely think clearly about moral issues. In those rare moments of clarity, we should seize and enshrine our conclusions, and pledge not to later cast them aside when they seem inconvenient.

A closing example from SSM: In their rare moments of moral clarity, most people would agree that it’s important for our government to perpetuate itself, and that babies are vital for accomplishing that. But most people don’t think about the perpetuation of governments on a day-to-day basis. Most people think about their short-term personal happiness. A considerable portion of those people equate their happiness with the pleasure they derive from sex. Within that very small universe, they are horrified that someone might want to discourage them from having sex in the way that they most enjoy based on some musty old irrational tradition.

One of the strangest moments in SSM debates comes when you ask an SSM supporter if circumstances could ever arise in which the government could discriminate in favor of those who can procreate. SSM supporters don’t want to talk about that. Raised in the seventies overpopulation scare, they find the idea of governments encouraging babies to be preposterous. We’ve got lots of people everywhere, don’t we?

Well, no, actually. American fertility rates are right at the replacement level, and rates in Europe and Japan have been well below replacement for a long time now. Professional demographers who think far out into the future see some very legitimate reasons for governments to worry about encouraging the production of babies. But many spoiled Americans, minds firmly welded to genitals, never see that broader view. They want to defeat the party-poopers and declare a constitutional right to fun.

Maybe capital punishment, constitutional law, and SSM are poor examples because they’re so controversial. It’s hard to talk about this without stepping on some big emotional land mines. But then, that’s really the point. We can only think clearly about our moral foundations in the abstract, with a long perspective and our emotions disengaged. That’s when we must set our moral principles and commit to them. If we don’t commit to a clear moral foundation in those few moments, then we will do most of our moral thinking issue by issue, with our emotions inflamed and our perspectives limited.

The Declaration of Independence is not a legally binding document.

Also, while the document does claim that the Creator endowed Men with certain inalienable rights, I doubt you'll find all of the rights they describe spelled out in the Bible, or even consistent with what is in the Bible. This means the founding fathers were projecting their own Age of Enlightenment, secularist ideas into their image of God.

For example, I highly doubt the British treated the colonies any worse that the Romans treated the Jews in Palestine. But the Declaration of Independence goes completely against giving unto Caesar what is Caesar's. Instead (to put it in a crude way) it tells Caesar to **** off.

Ben, I agree with much of what you say especially that we must commit to a clear moral foundation.

"One of the strangest moments in SSM debates comes when you ask an SSM supporter if circumstances could ever arise in which the government could discriminate in favor of those who can procreate. SSM supporters don’t want to talk about that."

This makes no sense at all unless you specify *how* the government should be able to discriminate based on procreative abilities. Are you saying that the government should be able to discriminate in areas of housing and employment based on ability to procreate ?

The reality is that the government DOES NOT currently discriminate in marriage law based on ability to procreate.

And the argument that SSM will affect re-perpetuation is a poor one. There are already many financial and cultural incentives to both create and take care of children. I cannot see how legitimizing same sex relationships would or should affect that.

Again, and as I've said before, where we differ is on how 'moral thinking' and 'moral principles' are defined.

Dan said:

"The Declaration of Independence is not a legally binding document."

So you are saying that the U.S. is not an independent nation now? Granted I've heard there are quite a few people that would like to believe that, but the last I knew was that this is still a sovereign nation.

and also:

"I doubt you'll find all of the rights they describe spelled out in the Bible, or even consistent with what is in the Bible.... But the Declaration of Independence goes completely against giving unto Caesar what is Caesar's."

Just what I need in my life... another 'atheist' pointing out when people don't follow the Bible verbatim. What should it matter to an 'atheist' if all the rights described in the Declaration of Independence are spelled out or not spelled out in the Bible?

The SSM debate's a bit off the topic of this post, but I'll chime in nonetheless: I remain unable to think of any way to bridge the gap between supporters and opponents of same-sex marriage. Within the same comment, Mark has argued both that part of the reason homosexuals should be permitted to marry is that "current marriage law or the legal acknowledgement of relationships is not currently based on ability to procreate" and that "the argument that SSM will affect re-perpetuation is a poor one."

Which is it? Is the central institution for organizing and encouraging reproductive families no longer a procreative institution? Or will rewriting marriage law to pretty much explicitly say that procreation and marriage are not intrinsically linked not affect procreation?

The Declaration of Independence is the first of the foundational laws of this country. Congress included it in the opening section of the US Code.

And in light of Justin's strong impression that the first worldview he described is "involved and organic", this part of the USC is explicitly named "The Organic Laws of the United States."

Search for "Creator" at the following URL:
http://uscode.house.gov/search/criteria.php

The Declaration of Independence is the first of the foundational laws of this country. Congress included it in the opening section of the US Code.

And in light of Justin's strong impression that the first worldview he described is "involved and organic", please note that this part of the USC is explicitly named "The Organic Laws of the United States."

Search for "Creator" at the following URL:
http://uscode.house.gov/search/criteria.php

I stand by both of my comments.

It is true that current marriage is not based solely on the ability to procreate. There are numerous examples of legal marriages where there is no ability to procreate either by disability or age. I never said that this is the reason homosexuals should be allowed to marry. I am only saying that denying them for that reason alone is not legitimate.

Also, the argument that SSM will affect re-perpetuation IS a poor one. Basis for laws should not be "how others will react". That is not to say morality should not play a role. It should. I happen to feel polygamy and incest should not be legitimized for some of the same reasons you feel about homosexuality. But I would not accuse legitimization of those behaviors of affecting birth rates as an argument against those.

Is the central institution for organizing and encouraging reproductive families no longer a procreative institution?
---- Yes, it is. Except that I might exclude the word 'reproductive' from your definition. Are you saying that allowing gays to marry discourages organizing families ? We would disagree on that.

Or will rewriting marriage law to pretty much explicitly say that procreation and marriage are not intrinsically linked not affect procreation?
----- Currently, legal procreation can occur with marriage and legal marriage can occur without procreation. To me, that means that they are not intrinsically (or legally) linked.

Currently, legal procreation can occur with marriage and legal marriage can occur without procreation.

Yes, but current law doesn't contain the underlying stipulation that marriage isn't about the literal creation of families through childbirth. What is the one thing that only a man and a woman can do together? Doesn't the obvious answer — of general principle — indicate something about what the institution is about?

Is the central institution for organizing and encouraging reproductive families no longer a procreative institution? ---- Yes, it is. Except that I might exclude the word 'reproductive' from your definition. Are you saying that allowing gays to marry discourages organizing families ?

Again, I just don't know how to bridge this gap. Just look at what we've written: I offered a definition of marriage (well founded in history) that marriage is about organizing reproductive families. You took the definition and cut out "reproductive," and yet you think that doing the same thing on the level of social policy will have no effect on reproduction (whether failing to link it with stable mother-father relationships or, more broadly, failing to encourage it at all).

P.S. — This relates to something Robert wrote in another thread about thinking that all potential parents should have to pass a class in order to have children: what, exactly, would be "illegal procreation"? I'd suggest that even your having implied such a thing ought to raise red flags about the positions toward which your SSM advocacy is pushing you.

Dan, read this post over at the Belmont Club. It is the secularist worldview that has weakened the West, and that hampers us in combating radical Islam. Specifically, it hampers the contest of ideas.

Mike:

>> …You may have heard of a debate about whether the Constitution is a "living document" or not. There are significant sections of our society, predominantly secular and liberal, and dominant in the academy, legal, mass media, entertainment, and government bureaucracies, who think that it is, in fact, a "living document" - i.e. it says whatever they want it to say.

The concept of the Constitution as a “Living Document” means that rules can be made in inferences, what can be read “between the lines” and what the Supreme Court believes the authors meant, based on other writings they made. It is not mean that the Court could one day decide that slavery is OK, we can throw anyone who disagrees into jail forever, and that’s what the words in the Constitution really say. Good people will agree and disagree on the Court’s interpretations, but the problem with sticking to strict, literal interpretations is
1) A literal part of the constitution may have to be applied in ways that the authors never intended and defy common sense.
2) How do you apply the Constitution to areas that the authors never imagined would exist, such as the Internet?
If the Court makes a “living document” decision that is way off-base, then a later court decision may reverse it, or an amendment.

> Second, how can a document written ~230 years ago be our "moral foundation"?

If books written thousands of years ago can be considered a “moral foundation,” then why not a 230 year-0old document?

>>What was the moral foundation of the men who wrote it? What is the moral foundation for non-American societies? And how do we know whether we are "amending it wisely"?

Like I’ve written, our cultures moral foundation is a mix of Judeo-Christian, Greco-Roman and secular Age of Enlightenment ideas. The difficulty of passing Constitutional Amendments ensures that all proposed amendments will be thoroughly discussed and debated in all parts of our country and will not pass without broad support. Not all of them may be wise, but this process makes unwise amendments less likely to pass.

>Why do you think Europe's future looks bleak?
Because they are not producing enough children.

When the US was importing huge numbers of immigrants in the 19th century, there was a lot of friction between the immigrants and the natives. But these immigrants and their children eventually assimilated and our immigrant heritage now seen as a strength, not our downfall. The importation of large numbers of non-Europeans to Europe will certainly transform Europe, and yes, they may need to change their social programs. But why do you assume that any change must be for the worse?

Ben:

> But they don't agree on what the Constitution is. I think that it's a specific series of words that are significant only because they were voted on by citizens or their representatives. Others seem to think that the Constitution is the free-floating spirit of justice and goodness, which can mean anything at all from one day to the next.

I am referring to this document, the foundation of US Law: http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html I’ve never heard of what you are referring to.

> …you can't deduce morality solely from logic and observation. Those can only tell you how to accomplish a given goal; they can't tell you which goal you ought to try to accomplish.

To logic and observation I would add emotion, and weighing one’s responsibilities. That is how one decides what they must short-change one desire or responsibility to serve another. You may seek guidance from a religious scripture, but it is still your sense of urgency and priority that lead you to decisions.

>“It is no more possible to be religious without practicing any particular religion then it is possible to speak without speaking any particular language.” In practice, those who don’t have firm foundations for their non-logical moral premises tend to define morality for their own momentary convenience—usually without even realizing that they’re doing so.

I completely disagree. First of all, many people hold feelings and beliefs about Jesus and read the Bible without being members of specific denominations. Other people feel a spiritual sense of connection to nature. “Tree-huggers” are religious, practicing a religion believing that disruption of natural processes must be kept to an absolute minimum (I an NOT one of them BTW, although I do feel strong spiritual feelings in paces like California’s Sierra Nevada Mountains).

The vast majority of Christians also “define morality for their own momentary convenience—usually without even realizing that they’re doing so.” If one needs to find a Bible quote to justify something one wants to do, a suitable quote can almost always be found.

>>The recent US Sup Ct decision on capital punishment provides a fine example: If the Constitution is a series of specific words approved by specific people, then its meaning is fixed. The people who approved those words intended them to mean something specific. We may think that they were wrong, or even evil in what they wanted. But at least their intent as recorded at that time doesn’t change.

>>But most liberals don’t agree with that view. They want a living Constitution, which means that the Constitution says whatever a majority of the US Sup Ct says it says.

If the “living document” concept of the Constitution is invalid, then what of the Bible, which (along with the Quran) may be the most “living” document in history? “Fundamentalist” religions claim to stick with what scriptures literally say, yet there are many times more interpretations of what the Bible really means than there are interpretations of what the Constitution means. So the Bible means what people want it to mean, even more so than the Constitution.

>>A closing example from SSM: In their rare moments of moral clarity, most people would agree that it’s important for our government to perpetuate itself, and that babies are vital for accomplishing that… A considerable portion of those people equate their happiness with the pleasure they derive from sex. Within that very small universe, they are horrified that someone might want to discourage them from having sex in the way that they most enjoy based on some musty old irrational tradition.

I have some news for you: The kind of sex that great majority of Americans love to have is exactly the kind that produces babies!

>>One of the strangest moments in SSM debates comes when you ask an SSM supporter if circumstances could ever arise in which the government could discriminate in favor of those who can procreate. SSM supporters don’t want to talk about that …American fertility rates are right at the replacement level, and rates in Europe and Japan have been well below replacement for a long time now.

You are drawing a connection between two issues that have nothing to do with each other. The decline in fertility rates in Western countries has a number of factors. With infant and childhood mortality relatively rare, it is no longer necessary to give birth 6 times to ensure that one or two of your children reach adulthood. With Social Security, 401(k) and other retirement income, senior citizens no longer rely on adult children to financial support them. And increasing numbers of two-income families have driving housing prices to where two incomes are a necessity rather than an option for many families, making large families more difficult to manage logistically or financially. SSM and low fertility rates are absolutely unrelated. Do you think my sister, who gave birth to a perfect little boy last year, will have a conversation with her husband along the lines of “The Liberal courts are going to allow gays to get married, so let’s not have any more children?”

>> We can only think clearly about our moral foundations in the abstract, with a long perspective and our emotions disengaged.

I agree about emotions disengaged, but when you are too abstract, it is too easy to stray from reality. That’s why if you say SSM harms marriage, I ask you to explain how my marriage will be harmed, how my sister’s marriage and baby would be harmed, or why my other sister would change her mind and not get married because gays were getting married. If you can’t explain how individual marriages would be harmed, then there is no basis to claim that marriage as an institution would be harmed.

SMMTherory:

>>"The Declaration of Independence is not a legally binding document."
>>So you are saying that the U.S. is not an independent nation now? Granted I've heard there are quite a few people that would like to believe that, but the last I knew was that this is still a sovereign nation.

The Declaration of Independence by itself did not make the US a sovereign nation. That was accomplished by the war that followed.

>> What should it matter to an 'atheist' if all the rights described in the Declaration of Independence are spelled out or not spelled out in the Bible?

We are often told that the US is a Christian nation founded on Christian vales because God is discussed in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. I pointed out that 1) God is NOT mentioned in the Constitution, and 2) the Creator references in the Declaration of Independence allege that the Creator granted men certain inalienable rights, but granting of these rights cannot be verified by reading scripture, and if fact, conflicts with scripture. This leads me to suspect that Creator references were either more of figures of speech, or that the founding fathers had a view of Christianity influenced by Age of Enlightenment secularist ideas; the concept if the Bible as a “living document” if you will.

It seems to me, Dan, that you're using different standards for law and religion when you ought to use the same standards, and the same standards when you ought to use different ones.

An example of the former: Somehow the Supreme Court can justify a "living document" by interpreting what "the authors meant, based on other writings they made." Yet, when it comes to the claim that America is a "Christian nation," you're a strict textualist.

An example of the latter:

If books written thousands of years ago can be considered a "moral foundation," then why not a 230 year-old document?

As a Catholic, I'm not afraid to call the Bible a "living document"; it's the Holy Book of a Living God, after all. But let me speak more generically: to a believer, those "books written thousands of years ago" were divinely inspired. As an atheist, you can't make that same claim about the Constitution... especially if you're going to support a "living document" interpretation method. (Please avoid the obvious dodge of pointing to the "many scriptures" and running away from the actual argument.)

(N.B. — I'd address the points on same-sex marriage, but — meaning this with absolutely no condescension [I've just been on that topic for a long time] — they're sort of first and second round objections, and the responses should be relatively easy for you to find without my retyping them. Or perhaps somebody else will pick up the slack.)

Dan said:

"The Declaration of Independence by itself did not make the US a sovereign nation. That was accomplished by the war that followed."

Gee, and you don't think that fighting a war is a bit heavy handed to enforce a document that is not legally binding huh?

"(other text clipped for brevity)...but granting of these rights cannot be verified by reading scripture, and if fact, conflicts with scripture."

As I said before, since you are an 'atheist', why do you need to verify whether these rights are granted or conflict with Biblical scripture? Why does an 'atheist' place so much credence in the Bible? If God truly didn't exist, you wouldn't have to work so hard to deny his existence.

>> Dan: "The difficulty of passing Constitutional Amendments ensures that all proposed amendments will be thoroughly discussed and debated in all parts of our country and will not pass without broad support. Not all of them may be wise, but this process makes unwise amendments less likely to pass."

And yet the Constitution has been amended by the Court in direct contradiction of national debates that had been underway. And it is THAT process which increases the odds that unwise amendments will pass.

You cited the example of slavery, for instance, which is not mentioned in the Constitution. The Supreme Court attempted to settle the issue of slavery with the deliverance of its own contorted Dred Scott opinion. This, too, substituted the collective wisdom of the words writen and ratified by the founding generation. It substituted the refined and updated words-between-the-lines of a majority of a few in court chambers.

Do you agree with that Dred Scott was a landmark in Supreme Court jurisdrudence? What of Lincoln's response as President? And the country's subsequent repudiation of Dred Scott?

The Supreme Court had no better record on the Amendments the country ratified in repudiation of Dred Scott.

As for the marriage issue, it appears that those who favor discarding the man-woman criterion of marriage are also those who'd re-write the Constitution by establishing a suspect classification for sexual orientation through an embellishment of sexual equality doctrine. A doctrine that itself is several layers removed from the Constitution. The constitutional amending process now seems now as remote from the national debate that you described is the tether for moral decisions, as it was in the days of Dred Scott.

--

The Declaration of Independence is a foundational law as per the United States Code.

Clarification: It seems to me that the process of ratification of constitutional amendments has been supplanted by the amending process utilized by certain doctrines of the Supreme Court. The Court rewrites the document and wwhen the other branches of government, and the People, disagree, this is expressed through the Amending Process -- a national debate that may or may not produce the supermajority needed to repudiate the supposed wisdom of the Court.

It is also noteworthy that the various doctrines formed by the Court naturally infilitrate the national debate in such a way as to make these issues court-centric. Reading between the ilnes becomes a game of anticipating the Court's route to certain *policy* outcomes. This generally demonstrates that the tether is overstretched, frayed, if not severed on some key issues.

"Good people will agree and disagree on the Court’s interpretations, but the problem with sticking to strict, literal interpretations is"

Who said anything about 'strict, literal interpretations'? Like Ben said, the text has a specific meaning. Sometimes that meaning is more obscure than others, but Constitutional jurisprudence in the 20th century used such contorted logic it was obvious that the justices were trying to get around that meaning, and substitute their own version. Now they aren't even bothering: in the recent minor death penalty case, Kennedy basically said, "well, some states have already barred capital punishment for minors, and most of the rest of the world has, too, so it must be unconstitutional" - his decision is an "intellectual train wreck", to use the phrase George Will used in his column on it today. The same is true of many other decisions.

"When the US was importing huge numbers of immigrants in the 19th century, there was a lot of friction between the immigrants and the natives. But these immigrants and their children eventually assimilated and our immigrant heritage now seen as a strength, not our downfall. The importation of large numbers of non-Europeans to Europe will certainly transform Europe, and yes, they may need to change their social programs. But why do you assume that any change must be for the worse?"

1) Europe does not have the tradition of assimilating immigrants that the U.S. does.

2) The U.S. has acheived assimilation by limiting immigration (i.e. we let in a bunch around the turn of the century, then significantly restricted it after WWI) - if we had kept it at high levels constantly, we probably would have a lot more problems.

3) Large fractions of the immigrants in Europe are Muslims. This poses unique problems, since Islam intrinsically doesn't distinguish between the political and religious spheres. If we had the same rates of Muslim immigrants as Europe, we would have trouble, too, and we are much better at dealing with the problem. Perhaps the Middle East will reform, reducing the pressures that produce radical Islamists, but it's going to take time, and it's not clear that that will happen fast enough to reduce the problems currently apparent in Europe.

4) Europe's economy isn't growing fast enough, so a large fraction of those immigrants are poor, jobless, and not integrated into society - they are in ghettos.

5) "They may need to change their social programs" is the understatement of the year.

Justin:

Not being a Christian, I am neither a strict textualist nor a "living document" adherent. However, since much of the Bible is written in parables and symbols, and obviously does not directly address issues created by modern technology, a strict textualist approach is neither advisable nor practical.

As for the Constitution, I lean more toward "living document" because a strict textualist interpretation can lead to applications that defy common sense, or are vary contrary to how we view our country. For example, a strict textualist view would allow States to ban all criticism of government because the "Congress" as used in the First Amendment would refer to the US Congress only and not to state legislatures.

However I still reserve the right to disagree with inferences the Supreme Court or anyone else claims to read into the Constitution.

On SSM, I haven't been here for the full debate, but have you discussed the civil unions compromise, where the term marriage would refer only to opposite sex couples, but same-sex-couples would still be able to establish a similar legal relationship that addresses the issues of common property, power of attorney, etc, as easily and inexpensively as an opposite sex marriage?

Of course, this will not satisfy same sex couples who want to be married in every sense of the word, nor will it please staunch SSM opponents whose proposed Constitutional amendment prohibits civil unions as well. (http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0310/editorial.html)

Here's a timely rebuttal to Dan's thesis by Michael Novak and Christopher Levenick.

More on the Roper decision.

Here's the George Will column I mentioned.

Chairm:

I hadn't read about the Dred Scott decision since high school, so I looked it up. Wow, from the perspective of one born while Martin Luther King Jr. was alive, it is pretty shocking.

I'll have to say that this qualifies as a "between the lines" interpretation I don't agree with. It is my understanding that prior to the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment, the definition of citizenship was left to the States. If the Founding Fathers really intended States to be prohibited from granting citizenship to Negroes, you think they would have explicitly said so. This interpretation ignores the controversy over slavery, which pre-dates the formation of the Union.

Mike,

The Novak article seems to confirm what I have written, that the US was founded on a mix of Judeo-Christian and secular Enlightenment ideas. This conflicts with much of the modern Conservative rhetoric that we are in a "cultural war" in which secularism represents the forces trying to destroy our society.

I also noted that George Bush's statements that freedom and liberty are gifts from God seem to be based on similar statements by various Founding Fathers.

I'm not a Biblical scholar, so maybe someone else can help:

Are these statements based on the Bible, or a secularist/Enlightenment influenced view of Christianity?

Dan said:

"The Novak article seems to confirm what I have written, that the US was founded on a mix of Judeo-Christian and secular Enlightenment ideas. This conflicts with much of the modern Conservative rhetoric that we are in a "cultural war" in which secularism represents the forces trying to destroy our society."

There is only a conflict with conservative rhetoric when you equate Modernist Secularism with the somewhat secular ideas the country's fore-fathers gleened from the Age of Enlightenment. Modernist Secularism inflated the secular ideas until the Secular became the ideal over the Religious instead of the background.

SSMTheory:
Reading columns on the "cultural war" one might think that one either:

1) Wants to ban all mentions of God in public,
2) Wants to "impose" perverted gay sex on regular people by allowing SSM,
3) Wants to ban the use of meat for food,
4) Wants to allow terrosts to run us over while we scratch our heads wondering why they hate us.

OR one would:

1) Support families by preventing SSM
2) Support religion by supporting prayer in schools, and God in the Pledge of Allegence.
3) Remind everyone that the Founding Fathers were all Conservative Christians and that the Constition is based on the Bible.
4) Fight secularism where ever it rears its ugly head.

Yes, there are positions held by people on the extreme left that based more on leftist dogma than rational analysis. But the views of Ward Churchill and his ilk do not represent the views of the large majority of Democrats, any more than most Republicans would ban "Harry Potter" for teaching Satansism. Extreme left views are not going to become government politcy anytime soon.

Dan said:

"Extreme left views are not going to become government politcy(sic) anytime soon."

Somehow I think the millions of aborted fetuses would probably disagree with you there Dan. I know you find this hard to believe, but you are a product of Modernist Secularism. Even if your beliefs are moderate in nature, the Modernist Secularism ideology does not require that all followers be radical or extreme. It only requires that followers steer clear of religioius ideals.

More on Europe's demographic problems, and how they are related to their public pension systems, which are in turn related to their secular worldview.

P.S. someone needs to show that TCS piece to Jon Rowe.