That's not what I, or Hitchens, was talking about. He explains in the video.

A philosopher king?

A 'set of moral principles' is nothing to do with religion - or atheism. Connecting the two has no validity, in the same way that trying to connect horse dung and chocolate just because they're both brown has no validity.

So no - organising society around a set of moral principles is not a 'de facto religion'. It is exactly what the words say it is - a society organised around a set of moral principles.

Religion is an organised belief system built on faith instead of evidence. If part of that non-evidence belief is a god, then that is theism. If the existence of a god is not believed, then that is non-theism, refered to as atheism.

It really is as simple as that - and the moment you start trying to equate atheism (or theism, for that matter) to other characteristics, all you're doing is making assumptions that have nothing to do with either atheism or theism.

"He is an atheist - therefore he is someone who X" is just a wild guess if X is anything other than "doesn't believe in the existence of a god."

I can't say I agree that we cannot identify many objective moral principles centered on well being of humanity that wouldn't be "faith-based" and wouldn't be immune to continuous reevaluation, rethinking, testing, etc., and that this continued reevaluation, etc., would be valued for the simple reason that valuing it continues to provide us with better results over time.
...
My knee jerk reaction is to agree with Hitchens, but I'm not sure such a society doesn't amount to imagining what a society would be like if all the people in it were either perfectly rational, or had a solid grasp of when they were straying from rationality (individually and as a whole). I'm really not sure if that is fair either, but I would at least say that a society that held in high esteem the values of critical thinking, testing, science, rationalism, freedom of thought, etc., would be LESS LIKELY to fall into famine, war, tyranny, etc. Maybe it's not even a profound thought. I don't know. Something about it is bothering me because I sense a contradiction in my own thoughts about it. I just can't put a finger on it beyond what I wrote here.

@ToakReon
You are defining religion in a way that fits the "New Atheist" narrative but ignores world consensus ("there is no scholarly consensus over what precisely constitutes a religion". [en.wikipedia.org] ). There is no historical or philosophical justification for associating religion exclusively with a belief in a literal god, or with placing faith above evidence. What is much more universally associated with religion is principles for living well in society, and that always includes references to morality. The Dalai Lama, for example, says that when well-established science proves that a particular Buddhist doctrine is incorrect, then the Buddhist doctrine must change to fit the evidence. The world at large considers Buddhism to be a religion. The definition of religion that the "New Atheists" are promoting is not, and never has been, in sync with world history.

@greyeyed123
Certainly critical thinking is the right direction, but as you suggest, we can't expect any society to adopt, wholesale, perfectly rational behavior simply because an educated minority tells them to. From where I stand, it appears that we have always, and will always elevate certain values over others, and we will always apply some name to that act of elevation, like "sacred". And we will always ritualize the reinforcement of those virtues, whether we call that ritual devotion or education. It's mostly a semantics problem I think.

@skado Do Buddhists reject the fantastical/supernatural claims about Buddha's origin, reincarnation, etc? Seems weird to me that a claimed reincarnated entity such as the Dalai Lama would reject the idea of reincarnation simply because it has never been demonstrated scientifically. If the Dalai Lama is saying it is up to science to disprove doctrines for which there never was any evidence in the first place, that is shifting the burden of proof, and as far as I can tell, has nothing to do with New Atheism or any narrative. It's just a cute way of saying they will hold on to their weird beliefs until someone can prove they are not true.

@greyeyed123
Well, if in the worst case that was his intention, then I'd say they're not doing anything the rest of us aren't doing. In the absence of science, we all pretty much fill in the blanks with what makes most sense to us, and what makes sense to one is always going to seem "weird" to another.

But I don't think it's the Dalai Lama's intention to cleverly skirt the reach of science. It appears to me he has always loved science and has proactively pursued merging traditional Buddhism with the standards of modern science. Since 1987 he has met regularly with groups of scientists to further this goal.
In his own words:

[dalailama.com]

@skado True, there is no universal definition for religion - which is very convenient for the religious, when atheists start asking awkward questions and they wish to conveniently move the goalposts to avoid facing those questions.

In the absence of such clear definition, directed debate becomes impossible unless you first define what you are debating about - so if 'new age atheists' declare a definition, because the religious themselves are unprepared to do so, and say 'this is what I personally mean when I use the term religion - it has caracteristics inherent to, and forming the foundation of, the major world religions, and there are logical inconsistencies in it that make it invalid and delusional' then good - those words need to be said rather than hidden behind a fog of obfuscation.

Then you come to the nonsense "What is much more universally associated with religion is principles for living well in society". Sorry - take the bible as an example. Yes, there are 'nice bits' - but there is also slaughter of enemies and keeping their virgin girls for yourselves as sexual possessions, killing those who work on the sabbath, God summoning bears to butcher 42 children for the 'crime' of mocking a man, new brides being stoned to death on their father's doorstep unless they can 'prove' their wedding night virginity, condemnation and slaughter of non-believers, bigotry against homosexuals and all sorts of other vicious (in many cases murderous) garbage.

True, there are good christians - but that has never been because they live their life according to the bible. Good christians are good in spite of their faith, not because of it.

Then, finally, we come to the term 'atheist' - which is clearly defined. 'A' (not) 'theist' (believer in a supernatural god). Now theists (and other religious individuals) don't like atheists. Atheists ask questions, and point out absurdities, in religious beliefs that are uncomfortable to them - so one of the classic responses is to ascribe atheism characteristics it doesn't have, and then attact those fictional characteristics rather than reality.

'Atheists hate god!' 'Atheists are immoral!' 'Atheists actually worship Satan!' 'Atheists want to destroy religious freedom!' (That's actually an interesting one - coming, as it often does, from a restriction that merely stops the religious having 'rights' based on their faith that restrict the freedoms of others, and place faith above equality).

I could go on.

@greyeyed123

There’s lots of evidence for reincarnation. For you the evidence might not be persuasive—for others it is. There is no absolute standard for deciding what is true. Each person must decide for herself.

And BTW, there’s no such thing as a burden of proof except in a courtroom.

@WilliamFleming The burden of proof comes from argumentation. The fact that it works is why it is used in a courtroom. Few people understand how it works, or critical thinking, however.

@greyeyed123 “Burden of Proof” is a pseudo-legal term having no real application except in a court of law. No one can prove anything to another person. The only burden, if there is a burden, is for each person to examine the available evidence with an open mind. Some degree of belief might follow spontaneously.

In a courtroom various kinds of evidence are acceptable:

Analogical Evidence. ...
Anecdotal Evidence. ...
Character Evidence. ...
Circumstantial Evidence. ...
Demonstrative Evidence. ...
Digital Evidence. ...
Direct Evidence. ...
Documentary Evidence.

To say that there is NO evidence for reincarnation is obviously just bias.

@WilliamFleming Sure. There is no good evidence for reincarnation. You got me there! (There is bad evidence for the Cottingley Fairies.) "The burden of proof" as it is used in the argumentative sense doesn't use the word "proof" in the mathematical sense, obviously. It's how we demonstrate things in reality using argument and evidence.

@greyeyed123 Sounds like to mention “burden of proof” is just a way to intimidate your debate opponent and overwhelm them with your intellectual superiority, especially if no real proof is to be involved and you are just being argumentative. It’s a catty way of telling them to shut up.

Have you ever told someone that they had a burden of proof, and had them subsequently present such a proof that convinced you of their position? Not likely I’m thinking.

@WilliamFleming Yes. People do it all the time. That's how we know anything there is to know. It's just a demonstration of the truth of something via verifiable, reproducible, falsifiable, and predictive means. The doctor thinks you may be diabetic because you have some symptoms and a family history. So you test your blood sugar. You test your A1C. You don't trust that doctor? That test? You go to another doctor, and have him run the tests. You get your own glucose monitor and try it yourself. It's possible the results could have been different, but they weren't. It's verifiable, reproducible, falsifiable, and predictive. I don't then go to the doctor, tell him I'm not diabetic because the burden of proof is just a trick to make me feel bad about the ten cakes I eat every day.

@greyeyed123 I can see what you are saying, and you have given a valid example. But you don’t actually tell the doctor that he has a burden of proof. In fact he has no burden of proof. You have to find out for yourself what is true.

I lean toward several metaphysical concepts that are considered “woo” by many on this forum, and they say that there is ZERO evidence and that the burden of proof is on me. There is always at least some evidence and there is NO burden of proof. It is not my burden to persuade anyone of anything. I tried a few times before I caught on to the game. Whatever evidence I present is ALWAYS ruled inadmissible by them, who see themselves as judges. In other words, their minds are firmly set in stone, probably because they are protecting a cherished world view that gives them comfort. They would sit on their thrones till doomsday awaiting that certain admissible evidence.

If anyone wanted to investigate the subject of reincarnation there is lots of evidence out there:

[google.com]

It is certainly not my burden to make anyone examine that evidence. I frankly don’t give a damn what anyone does in that regard.

@WilliamFleming The burden of proof is not to force others to examine anything. I can explain it further if you would like. There is a wikipedia page.
[en.wikipedia.org]
Suffice it to say, evidence that is derived from a logical fallacy, is easily faked, inconclusive, gathered in uncontrolled ways, anecdotal, etc, is all "evidence" that can be used to support ANY claim. The problem skeptics have is that you are accepting bad evidence to support what you already believe, or what you WANT to believe, when you can easily formulate a conflicting claim and support it with the same kind of bad evidence. That kind of contradiction can't happen if you have good evidence that meets its burden of proof. That's all. It's not a trick, or a means to intimidate you.

@WilliamFleming You apparently sent me a google search list for evidence for reincarnation. I understand people make this claim, and there are STORIES that sound impressive. That isn't good evidence. It's the worst evidence possible. What is the single best piece of evidence for reincarnation that you have? (I will guess that it falls victim to one of the major problems I've already pointed out, because if it did not, it would already be known to be a true phenomenon.)

@greyeyed123 In other words, your mind is made up and you refuse to to read anything that might challenge your prejudice. I would think that if you are going to declare all those studies by reputable researchers to be bogus that you would at least provide evidence for your claim. Or is that only a requirement for your opponents? You yourself can freely make any kind of condescending, slurring claim without backing that claim up. You can just say that the evidence is no good and that if it were valid evidence it would be known. What kind of logic is that? Known by whom? Which study is bad? Which evidence is faulty and why?

According to that Wikipedia article you referred me to, in that you decline to give evidence for your shaky claims I can safely ignore anything you have to say on the subject.

@WilliamFleming Name one claim of reincarnation that is not simply a story that is unverifiable, unreproducible, unfalsifiable, and not predictive. Name one claim that doesn't fall victim to one or more logical fallacies. My mind is NOT made up. The way a claim is demonstrated is the same no matter what. There is a standard of evidence. Give me one piece of evidence that meets the standard (as I have suggested here) and I will look at it. If it meets the standard, it meets the standard. If it doesn't meet the standard, I can make up an opposing claim to your claim that doesn't meet the standard either...and yet you wouldn't except the opposing claim because it's not your claim and not what you want to believe. In other words, your claim has nothing to do with evidence and reason, and only has to do with what you want to believe. You understood the diabetes analogy. Right now I am the doctor in the analogy, and you are claiming you eat 10 cakes a day and have magical powers that negate the diabetes. Ok. Maybe you do. Where is your evidence?

@greyeyed123 They are not unverifiable stories. If you had read any of the articles you would know that. This is from the Scientific American article:

“ Towards the end of her own storied life, the physicist Doris Kuhlmann-Wilsdorf—whose groundbreaking theories on surface physics earned her the prestigious Heyn Medal from the German Society for Material Sciences, surmised that Stevenson’s work had established that “the statistical probability that reincarnation does in fact occur is so overwhelming … that cumulatively the evidence is not inferior to that for most if not all branches of science.”

She is talking about the work of psychiatrist Ian Stevenson who conducted a program at the University of Virginia for the investigation of reincarnation.

Dr. Stevenson was meticulous in his research. From time to time parents would report a child who was talking about a previous life. Someone would go and interview the child, using strict protocols. In many cases it was possible to learn who the previous person had been, who the family was, and where they had lived. A team would go with the child to that location and in many many cases airtight corroborating information would be uncovered. Every statement by the child would be carefully recorded and compared with on site findings. This is from the Scientific American article: “Importantly, their statements are, in principle at least, empirically falsifiable. If adults don’t automatically dismiss young children’s utterances as gibberish, any spontaneous comments suggestive of a past life can be carefully recorded, so researchers like Stevenson might later confirm or disconfirm their accounts.”

Thousands of cases were carefully documented and referenced, and Stevenson has published several books which document those cases. Arch-skeptics of course attack the books, but I haven’t read of a skeptic who traveled to various locations and interviewed the people involved. Like you, the skeptics just brand the books as “anecdotal”, and without further ado they dismiss decades of work by Dr. Stevenson and his staff, remaining securely zipped up in their cocoons of ignorance and bigotry.

Yet here’s a quote from one of the skeptical articles:

“An unlikely advocate of Stevenson’s research was the great sceptic regarding otherworldly things, Carl Sagan. In his popular science classic, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark, Sagan observed that this new field of study into children who “sometimes report the details of a previous life, which upon checking turn out to be accurate and which they could not have known about in any other way than reincarnation”, deserved “serious study” (Sagan, 1995, p. 285).

@WilliamFleming This indeed sounds impressive. I will look into it.

@ToakReon
I agree it's necessary to clearly define what you're discussing, otherwise we're just talking past each other. It's extra work, but not impossible to do if both parties are willing. I've never found religious folks unprepared to offer their definitions, but consensus of course is more than the act of all parties articulating a position. I'm totally with you on preferring clarity over fogginess, but what's clear to one is often foggy to another, and who can claim to be an independent judge? Science, we say, but my point is that there is no scientific consensus, let alone a humanity-wide consensus.

So it's not a battle between theists and atheists, or any opposing forces - it's simply that not even any individual school of thought has within its ranks any useful consensus on the definition, so yes, any two people who want to talk about it have to spend some time laying out some definitions.

I'm not sure I follow the logic of a person who disavows membership in a group having the authority to tell members how they are to understand their faith. I grew up in the Baptist Church and all my extended family and friends, for the most part, were Christians of one flavor or another, and this is the first I've heard of the bear story. I don't doubt it's there, and hundreds of others I've never heard of. The people I grew up around weren't inclined to take their mythology literally, or fanatically. They just taught being neighborly and charitable, and responsible. I agree that religious people are good in spite of their ill-fitting doctrines, rather than because of them, but they are retained because people seem to need, or think they need, some rituals to keep themselves reminded that sometimes doing the right thing takes personal discipline, and effort.

To say that religious people don't like atheists is probably too broad a brush. Religious people are mostly oblivious to atheists. I realize there are exceptions, but mostly their attention is focused elsewhere. You're certainly not alone in judging religion by its worst examples, they are plentiful, maybe the majority. But, for example, if our entire government were to be found to be corrupt, I would not then call for the abandonment of government - I would call for reform. Bad government is not the same thing as government. And bad religion, no matter how pervasive, is not the same thing as religion.

@WilliamFleming I read the wikipedia entry where you got the blurb, and I read the Scientific American article. I can't say I'm very impressed. I know nothing about Ian Bering, but reading the bottom of the article, it tells me "He is the author of The Belief Instinct (2011), Why Is the Penis Shaped Like That? (2012) and Perv (2013)." Which doesn't instill confidence. And the wikipedia entry suggested a lot problems in the data gathering. I do love the whole idea. Have you ever seen Cloud Atlas, or read the book? I think Cloud Atlas is still on Netflix. (The film seems to be a much better experience if you read the novel first.)

@greyeyed123 Thanks for the Cloud Atlas link. I’ll check into it later.

I would think Bering would be a side player in this story. Lots of writers have commented on Dr. Stevenson’s work, some skeptical but open-minded. I find Wikipedia to be generally hostile to subjects considered on the fringes of science. I haven’t read their article and haven’t mentioned it.

I would think that to read some of Stevenson’s books might be enlightening, however, I understand they consist mainly of data. It would become very boring after reading of a few cases. I myself have accepted the concept long since, and don’t need to read about it over and over.

I can certainly understand why anyone would be very skeptical of reincarnation studies because the idea challenges standard scientific models that we learned in school. I myself am open to the concept because I lean toward the idea of universal consciousness. Though only metaphysics at this point the concept is very enticing and has been embraced by many eminent physicists.

That of course doesn’t mean anyone really understands what is happening. My personal opinion is that personal identity as a body is a tenuous and insubstantial thing. The new person might share memories with the dead person but that doesn’t mean they are that person. Both selves are illusions. It might be something like remote viewing.

Anyway, Alabama beats Oklahoma and it’s my bedtime. Thanks for a stimulating interchange.

@skado Bears 2 Kings 2:23-24 if you're interested.

And 'biblical cherry-picking' is one of the underlying, crushing dishonesties of christianity.

"The bible is the word of God! It's truth is absolute - granting me the divine right to judge others, calling them sinners, and declaring that they will burn for an eternity in fire. Its words make me, as a man or woman of God, superior to all those lesser people who dare not accept the divine truth that I know and they do not... But only the bits of the bible I personally agree with, of course. The bits that just happen to tie in with my own views, my own prejudices, my own bigotry. Those inconvenient 'nasty bits' of the bible, the ones those damn atheists keep pointing out, must be conveniently explained away. They're just symbolism - you mustn't take them literally. They're old testament - our all-seeing, all-knowing, infallible and perfect God had realised he'd screwed up by then, and changed his mind, switching from psychopathic, jealous, vindictive, judgemental mass-murderer to all warm and loving. Except for those parts of the old testament I like - anti homosexual, women oppressing, anti other religions, etc - those bits are real, so that I can justify being a bastard."

It is crushing, shameful dishonesty - no less - and almost universal in the christian faith.

@ToakReon
Cherry-picking from the Bible, in and of itself, is not dishonest unless the person doing it claims they are not doing it. We know the Bible had at least forty authors whose writing spanned hundreds of years. It's not a monolithic document from a single source, so complaining about cherry-picking from the Bible is about like complaining if someone cherry-picks from the grocery store. I'm sorry but I don't eat pigs feet. That doesn't mean I'm going to avoid the grocery store because they're there.

If people justify their ignorance, narrow-mindedness, and mean-spiritedness by citing ancient literature or art, that doesn't mean I can't find wholesome inspiration in that same art. I don't like ignorance and meanness any more than you do, but they didn't get that way by reading the Bible. They just used the Bible to justify it. Take away that book and they'd use something else.
If a person reads a book that says "Judge not, that ye be not judged" and somehow manages to think that grants him the divine right to judge others, um... that ain't the book's fault.

@skado Cherry picking from the bible is most certainly dishonest when the picked sections are claimed to be the word of God, granting divine authority to back the personal views of those quoting them. That is, in effect, the bible-quoter declaring that they have personal right to choose what is or is not the will of God - what is or is not divine truth, by which they may judge others.

When homophobic christians look through the bible, find passages that support their prejudices, and personally choose to declare their homophobia to be God's will - while other christians of less bigotted view look through that same book and personally choose to discard those exact same passages so they can declare God does not have that bigotry - how can both be simultaneously right?

They cannot.

Yet both are deliberately and knowingly claiming their own interpretation of that book to be divine truth. There is no circumstance in which that can be done which is not either dishonest or, at the very least, irrational.

And you try and side-step this by claiming that the bible is not a monolithic document from a single source? If it is not such a monolithic document, then it is not the word of God - because God is a monolith. That is the whole point of the bible within the christian faith. Yes, it was written by many human authors, but they were inspired by God and speaking his words - the humans were God's chosen typewriters, but it was God's fingers on the keys. Without that concept of the bible being 'God's truth and God's words' then christianity means nothing - because the bible is all it's got.

And you're quite right, if a person reads a book that says 'Judge not, that ye not be judged' and then proceeds to judge, that is not the fault of the book - but in exactly the same way if they read Exodus 35:1-2 (I won't quote in full - it's the section demanding the death of those who work on the sabbath) and choose not to kill anyone they see working on the sabbath, then that's nothing to do with the book either.

You cannot claim that good deeds are inspired by the good words in the bible, but simultaneously claim that the foul words in that same book do not have similar power to inspire. If people acting monstrously are not 'the fault of the bible' then people acting well aren't a consequence of it either - and the bible ceases to be the 'source of morallity' that christians claim it to be, and is shown to be the collected bronze-age book of fairytales that it actually is.

@ToakReon Some of the teachings of Jesus are inspiring and meaningful for me. Also I like the story of Job, which I take as allegory.

Skado is right IMO. Some things from the grocery store might make me sick, but other things are good for me. Some books from the library are sickening—Mein Kamf for example, but that’s no reason to burn down the library.

@ToakReon, @greyeyed123 Wow, Cloud Atlas is definitely for me. I caught that it’s by the same people who produced the Matrix series, which I somehow managed to miss, and they produced ”Run Lola Run” which is one of my favorite films ever. I’ll definitely get my hands on the book.

I myself have written a sort of book or story called “The Staggering Implications of the Mystery of Existence” which is available on Kindle. Though just a novel, it explores the idea of rebirth to an extent.

@WilliamFleming The director of Run Lola Run directed some of Cloud Atlas, and the Wachowskis directed the rest (it was the only way such a huge undertaking could be accomplished). It very nearly did not get made, but Tom Hanks pushed it through. The book is awesome, connecting a wide variety of genres in a very clever way. The structure of the book is different than the structure of the movie, which is why many said it would be impossible to film. But they came as damned close as possible, I think, and I really loved the result. It flopped in theaters, but I think it's the best big budget independent film of all time, lol.

@WilliamFleming Yes - but different books in a library have different authors and offer different viewpoints. The whole point of the bible is that it is the word of God - all of it. It is God's divine truth - all of it. It has a single author - God.

If you say some parts of it are wrong, you're saying the infallible God GOT IT WRONG. Either that, or it's not the word of God. Take your pick.

Saying that certain parts of the bible are to be followed, and others are not, while still declaring the bible to be the absolute truth of an infallible God is simply incompatable with being true.

@ToakReon I’m not saying it’s the word of God. A bunch of bishops got together a collection of old writings and decreed their selection to be the work of God. Their making false claims in no way invalidates any of the writings.

And I am not saying that certain parts of the Bible are to be “followed”. I just read a book about some new physics theories. It’s not a book to be followed. It’s something to study and ponder and think about. A person should read the Bible just as he would any book. Parts might resonate and be meaningful if read as history, allegory, mythology, or even as enlightened teaching in some cases.

I haven’t looked at a bible in years.

@WilliamFleming But that's the problem.

The standard christian position is that the bible IS the word of God - which is what makes it more significant and more inherently true than other books.

If it is not the word of God it has no particular significance ahead of other works of fiction.

@ToakReon Except that it has historical and literary significance if read from a critical and detached perspective. And some of Jesus’s teachings are of value.

Well hell, that’s just my opinion. Who said you have to read the damn thing?

@WilliamFleming It's not a great work of literature. If it were not for it's significance as the christian bible, it would not be noted for its literary merit.

@ToakReon you are probably right. But some people like to read old writings to get a feel for life in those old days.

Why do you have such strong feelings? Would you have the Bible outlawed? Things written down can’t hurt you unless you think untrue thoughts about what is written.

@WilliamFleming Of course I would not want the bible outlawed - that I would consider utterly ridiculous, and totally inappropriate.

I have no problem at all with the bible as a book - what I have issues with is christians claiming that the bible is MORE than just a book. That it is a statement of divine reality. That those who base their lives upon it are in some unique way blessed or superior. That it is a singular and unassailable source of morality.

I have no objection to christians, or anyone else, reading it - as I have done myself.

I object to people using the bible to grant themselves rights that they deny others, to heap condemnation on the heads of those fellow humans they dislike, to justify their own prejudices, to claim authority where they have none.

The bible is just words on pages - and reading it does not make you special.

@ToakReon We are in total agreement.

@ToakReon
You say: "Cherry picking from the bible is most certainly dishonest when the picked sections are claimed to be the word of God, granting divine authority to back the personal views of those quoting them. That is, in effect, the bible-quoter declaring that they have personal right to choose what is or is not the will of God - what is or is not divine truth, by which they may judge others."

Here, you're having an argument with someone besides me. I don't make those claims, and I don't support that kind of narcissistic perversion of Biblical intent any more than you do. We have agreed that there's no universal definition of religion, so you're free to define it however you please, as am I. All I can say is that you have a much more strict and narrow definition than most practicing Christians I have known, and many prominent religious scholars. If you define religion as something that is always bad then of course all religion is going to be bad. What do you call religious people who do not fit that "bad" definition? Not religious? I've known lots of religious people who don't do those things you say all religious people do.

@WilliamFleming @ToakReon
"We are in total agreement."
Me too!

They have a few isms there

@48thRonin True, but religion has almost no baring on law and society, it is pretty much a secular state