…and this is a 
We can come up with better ethical principles than any religion
Category: Godlessness
Posted on: October 21, 2007 11:14 AM, by PZ Myers
Last night, in my talk, I said that I didn't think religion was necessarily a force for evil. Then, this morning, I was sent a link to some convoluted religious sophistry that made my lip curl in revulsion. Maybe I was wrong.
The link will take you to an article by Orson Scott Card in which he complains about homosexuals. That probably tells you all you need to know; Card has this reputation for letting his mormonism hang out in the ugliest ways possible.
Look at these horrible rationalizations for oppression.
One thing is certain: one cannot serve two masters. And when one's life is given over to one community that demands utter allegiance, it cannot be given to another. The LDS church is one such community. The homosexual community seems to be another.
There's one of the first danger signs in religion: exclusivity. The "us vs. them"/"if you aren't with us you're against us" mentality. The idea that the religious community is everything, and you must narrow your humanity and allow no other allegiances. What a selfish and restrictive collection of lies; how cult-like.
We Latter-day Saints know that we are eternal beings who must gain control of our bodies and direct our lives toward the good of others in order to be worthy of an adult role in the hereafter. So the regulation of sexual drives is designated not just to preserve the community of the Saints but also to improve and educate the individuals within it. The Lord asks no more of its members who are tempted toward homosexuality than it does of its unmarried adolescents, its widows and widowers, its divorced members, and its members who never marry. Furthermore, the Lord even guides the sexual behavior of those who are married, expecting them to use their sexual powers responsibly and in a proportionate role within the marriage.
There are several misrepresentations here. One is that homosexuality is all about sexual behavior, which must be controlled in ways of which Card approves. Throughout, get the impression that all Card considers when he thinks of homosexuals is the gross icky carnal things they do with their bodies; an infantile idea that sex is all about and only about slippery bits of meat sliding about, which must be regulated.
I know heterosexual and homosexual couples, and I don't even think much of, let alone obsess over, their private physical behavior. I see them as people who love each other, which ought to be enough for all of us.
The other joke in Card's comment is the implication that the LDS community uses "their sexual powers responsibly and in a proportionate role within the marriage". I knew women with 15 children when I lived in Salt Lake City, and we all knew the local polygamists. "Responsible and proportionate" is one of those ideas that is dependent on local mores, and much of the rest of the world considers the Mormons to be, well, wacky and weird.
The argument by the hypocrites of homosexuality that homosexual tendencies are genetically ingrained in some individuals is almost laughably irrelevant. We are all genetically predisposed toward some sin or another; we are all expected to control those genetic predispositions when it is possible. It is for God to judge which individuals are tempted beyond their ability to bear or beyond their ability to resist. But it is the responsibility of the Church and the Saints never to lose sight of the goal of perfect obedience to laws designed for our happiness.
Just for clarity's sake: Card uses the term "hypocrites of homosexuality" to refer to those who favor tolerance, rather than those who demand that everyone follow their personal peculiar restrictions. It's just one of the many little ironies in the article.
The claim that there are genetic predispositions to "sin" is an amazing conflation of science and religion — genes do not dictate what should be, but only what is. I personally suspect there are genetic predispositions for empathy and for love, and weaker genetic factors that tend to promote opposite-sex preferences; but environment is a stronger influence that can sway individuals in all different directions but none of that has anything to say about how people must behave, and definitely is not support for the bogus religious concept of sin.
That last sentence is classic. Obedience will make you happy. Obey even when the laws are arbitrary and will make you miserable. And what if you choose to disobey?
This applies also to the polity, the citizens at large. Laws against homosexual behavior should remain on the books, not to be indiscriminately enforced against anyone who happens to be caught violating them, but to be used when necessary to send a clear message that those who flagrantly violate society's regulation of sexual behavior cannot be permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens within that society.
The goal of the polity is not to put homosexuals in jail. The goal is to discourage people from engaging in homosexual practices in the first place, and, when they nevertheless proceed in their homosexual behavior, to encourage them to do so discreetly, so as not to shake the confidence of the community in the polity's ability to provide rules for safe, stable, dependable marriage and family relationships.
Nice. Stay in the closet, gay people, deny your desires, or you "cannot be permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens within that society." And then the rest of his essay goes on and on to protest that he really isn't a homophobe.
If this is godly morality, I want nothing to do with it. Let's think about godless moral guidelines — they are far superior, since they don't require insane interpretations of the delusional fantasies of religious kooks as a foundation. Card's essay does suggest three principles to me.
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
It's the basic one, the foundation of civil behavior in a human society. If two mutually consenting individuals want to do something together that causes no harm to others, it is not our privilege to deny them, or worse, punish them for it.
Love one another.
The desire to love and be loved is the keystone of human interactions; it's primal, I suspect it has biological roots, and it's part of the toolkit that drives socialization. I admit it, I wouldn't trust someone who says they don't love anyone. It's a warning sign that you are dealing with a psychopath. (Which, by the way, makes me suspicious of celibate priests and nuns who place their personal attachments on an imaginary being.)
This particular rule does not define who you should love, and any attempt to do so should be regarded as intrusive and unethical.
Your first loyalties are to yourself and the individuals who love you.
When I see Card claim that this abstract community united by common foolish beliefs demands "utter allegiance," I am repelled — no ideology should be so demanding or exclusive. That is not what matters, and it doesn't matter what organization you are talking about — if it tells you you must obey, that it is more important than the people who care about you, walk away. Replacing human connections with blind loyalty to ideology is ultimately destructive to the culture one is trying to build.
And that applies to any atheist institutions we work towards. Keep your perspective — doing right by the people in your family and community are important.
Notice, too, what makes Orson Scott Card so disgusting: his beliefs violate all three of those moral considerations. Not that he cares, since they've been made subsidiary to his dedication to his batshit insane beliefs that Jesus visited an America inhabited by Lamanites and Nephites, that there is magic underwear that will protect the wearer from harm, and that after death good Mormons get to establish their patriarchies on other planets and become gods themselves.
Comments
A bit OT, but you might be interested to see Hitchens response to the recent Freedom from Religion conference. About halfway down the page:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article2701379.ece
Posted by: SteveF | October 21, 2007 11:31 AM
Notice how Card neatly segues between the demands of Moronism [it makes so much more sense to skip the middle em] and the demands of civil society. If Card wants to join a totalitarian organization, which demands utter allegiance, that's his business. But the strictures of his voluntarily chosen cult have nothing whatsoever to do with the organization of civil society.
And that's why religion is always evil: It's never ever enough for the religious to simply declare, "This is how we want to live." Every time, without exception, no matter how "liberal" the religious are (or think they are), it always comes down to, "This is how everyone should live." Because it's (supposedly) God's choice, not man's.
Posted by: The Barefoot Bum | October 21, 2007 11:36 AM
Another fucking moron who will go to his grave with his crap morals, bullshit beliefs, and arrogant, egomaniacal, holier-than-thou attitudes intact.
Fucking, fucking, fucking asshole.
Posted by: CalGeorge | October 21, 2007 11:37 AM
He's a crappy science-fiction author to boot. I can't even force myself to finish reading his shit.
Posted by: Milo Johnson | October 21, 2007 11:38 AM
OS Card is comparing apples to oranges here. A sexual orientation with a strong genetic component and a religion. The whole essay is an example of logical inconsistencies and sloppy thinking justifying the worst of bigotry. As a religious bigot he doesn't care.
One can be a gay, Mormon, parent, US citizen, US soldier or scientist etc.. Sexual orientation is just one component of people's being.
Sort of ironic that a people who were oppressed and run out of the midwest after their leader was hung seem to find it so easy to oppress other people.
And who is Card to judge other people and tell them what to do? In the Mormon religion he is a god in training*. He needs to pay more attention to the training part than the god part.
*Mormons believe the best of them don't go to heaven. They become gods and get their own planet to populate with literally their own children. All gods are married. There is a Mrs. Jehovah although no one knowns much about her. She is apparently busy getting laid and getting pregnant a lot.
A lot of Xians consider Mormons a nonXian derivative although these days, who cares? They have benefited from the general tolerance of our free country without bothering to extend that principle to others.
There is an army base in the hills above SLC with its guns pointed down towards the city. In case the Mormons revolt. To be fair, Fort Douglas has been decommissioned.
Posted by: raven | October 21, 2007 11:41 AM
Every time, without exception, no matter how "liberal" the religious are (or think they are), it always comes down to, "This is how everyone should live."
Well, except for the Unitarians.
Posted by: coathangrrr | October 21, 2007 11:42 AM
Steven Weinberg: "With or without [religion] you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, it takes religion."
Posted by: melospiza | October 21, 2007 11:45 AM
I have a problem with your first item on your commandments, oh Might Pee Zed.
The rule should not be "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you", but should be "Do unto others as THEY would would have you do unto them."
The first wording allows for rationalisations such as "Well, if *I* were gay, I would want society to discourage me from acting certain ways." or "If I were a heathen, I would want to be converted to Christianity." or "I would like to be spanked really hard while wearing two wetsuits and a dildo up my arse".
The revised wording avoids such problems.
Posted by: Donalbain | October 21, 2007 11:47 AM
Card states that:
Wasn't the same thing stated back in the 60s when LDS was trying to prevent blacks from joining? Last I've seen, the hypocrisy of the Mormon's hasn't declined by eliminating their official racist policy, it's expanded to the point of presidential politics. Why any self-respecting homosexual would want to be a member of the LDS church completely baffles me, but Card's pseudological blather is from a different galaxy altogether.
Posted by: Eric | October 21, 2007 11:47 AM
Very sad.
The idea that a "community" would demand "utter allegiance" is one particular to Card's religion, and has nothing to do with homosexuality. There is no gay hierarchy that gays are required to show "allegiance" to, any more than there is a heterosexual hierarchy that heterosexuals show allegiance to.
As for his writing...Ender's Game was a book I thought was pretty good when I first read it, but the more books of his I read, the less I liked any of them. Card has a very confused and deranged theology and, the older he has gotten, the more he has inserted it into every facet of every book.
Posted by: RickD | October 21, 2007 11:47 AM
Hitchens has a point about how religion can serve to rationalize all sorts of nasty acts, but it's still true that the Western powers have been mucking around in the politics of the Middle East (can you say oil?) since the end of WWI. It's like saying that the troubles in Northern Ireland are due to that crazy Roman Catholicism, instead of a national history where a certain religious minority got the short end of the stick socially and economically. Thankfully, the peace process in Northern Ireland didn't get stuck on religion, and managed to make progress despite how the religious divide was a factor there.
Posted by: David Wilford | October 21, 2007 11:48 AM
Seriously, WTF? I wish I could speak with Card and ask him where he gets the idea that "society" (by which he evidently means "the government") has the right to, or even can, regulate peoples' sexual activity?
Posted by: Mathew Wilder | October 21, 2007 11:48 AM
"This applies also to the polity, the citizens at large. Laws against homosexual behavior should remain on the books, not to be indiscriminately enforced against anyone who happens to be caught violating them, but to be used when necessary to send a clear message that those who flagrantly violate society's regulation of sexual behavior cannot be permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens within that society."
So the law should be enforced on a selective bases. Is that because you know anti-homosexuality laws are inherently unjust and unenforceable Orson Scott Card? Yes, I am sure passing laws that every knows are evil will really enhance respect for the law.
Posted by: BobL | October 21, 2007 11:48 AM
Here is what I often offer as a very high level foundation for morals that do not require religion.
Make your actions and reactions such that their effect is to decrease suffering and increase happiness while maintaining or promoting free will among humans.
The details of doing this is what we should be debating. using this as a foundation allows us to consider what is good policy and what is bad policy with human beings as the backdrop rather than any religion or entity. Sure there will be disagreement about whether gun control reduces suffering, or abortion or gay marriage. but it forces people to explain how policy or individual actions will affect humans rather than stupid remarks like "it will destroy the sanctity of marriage".
Some have offered that promoting free will is redundant because they presumed that promoting free will directly leads to happiness. I think the trilogy must be looked at together. You only have to look as far as Britney Spears to see that unlimited free will doesn't necessarily lead to unlimited happiness.
P.S. Ender's game and Treason are two of my favorite SF books. I am so saddened that Card turns out to be such a close d minded idiot.
Posted by: Techskeptic | October 21, 2007 11:53 AM
Regarding your third point:
"I hate the idea of causes, and if I had to choose between betraying my country and betraying my friend, I hope I should have the guts to betray my country." - EM Forster
Posted by: RickD | October 21, 2007 11:54 AM
My personal favorite rewording of the "Golden Rule" -- Don't do to other people what you don't want them to do to you.
Posted by: MyaR | October 21, 2007 11:55 AM
Looking at the principles you just put down, it reminds me that one of the biggest insults thrown at atheists is "you don't have moral guidelines".
In a religious society such as we live in, being an atheist is mostly a matter of personal choice that comes with maturity in reasoning. Such being the case, it is difficult to separate our personal morals from the morals that our former religion/religious parents taught us. And so it can be argued: What happens to those who grow up in an atheist household, and those who adopt atheism thinking it is cool?
Moral guidelines are not religious guidelines, they are social guidelines that our parents and our society teach us. But religion has taken hold of them claiming itself to be the only authoritative source. So, why not make some social-moral guidlines that stand apart from religious heap of junk? And who would be better at doing it than the atheists without any un-reasonable attachments?
That would also take care of the insult that our kids don't have any moral code of conduct.
Posted by: Edman | October 21, 2007 12:07 PM
There are homosexuals high in the Mormon Church, Orson. Having rules against them, or fighting gay marriage for Mormons AND non-Mormons, doesn't change that fact. Know this. Imagine it. At lesast one guy high up in the Church is having wicked gay sex, and others are either covering up for him or pretending they don't see. Church rituals and pageantry attracts gays and non-gays alike. Power attracts gays and non-gays alike. Larry Craig didn't look like a gay bathroom cruiser; neither do closeted Mormon leaders. Given that, why can't the children of a lesbian or gay couple have parents with civil married rights?
Posted by: AR | October 21, 2007 12:08 PM
Oh dang, there goes my respect down the toilet for my long-cherished copy of Card's "How to Write Science Fiction and Fantasy"--flush, suck, blorbbbbbb... gurgle gurgle, flush. My badness, what an excruciating drivel! Well that will entail a serious re-reading, and if I happen to find anything remotely offensive in it along these lines and in this spirit, my copy might up and follow my respect.
Posted by: gyokusai | October 21, 2007 12:11 PM
That is a demonstrably false statement. Just stupid. Societies that tolerate or ignore GLBT are no different from ones that do. Except the level of gratuitous violence and murder and official state oppression go down. Along with a lot of human suffering like the homophobic bathroom cruising Larry Craigs bring onto themselves.
Card is free to believe whatever wingnutty evil things he wants. He is not free to impose his wacko religious views on anyone else. That is the law in the USA. You would think that someone whose leader was hung and cult run out of the midwest by force and violence would get it. You would be wrong.
Posted by: raven | October 21, 2007 12:12 PM
Good post PZ, The ideas posted by Orson are clearly bad and bigoted religious ideas.I doubt anyone on this blog would disagree with that.
The first two of your pricipals you give are very sound, though certainly derived from our cultural (and religious) heritage.
The third one conains more food for thought:
"Your first loyalties are to yourself and the individuals who love you."
Because it may open a huge can of worms when considering personal loyalty against common good - as if you knew one of your bothers had committed some horrible crime. It is also one you would be going against if you sacrificed your life for a bunch of strangers. Is that necessarily a bad thing to do?
I am not saying it is wrong, just that on its own it may not always be that simple.
But beyond that, you cannot come with moral principals derived from science that can hep us find our way in Iraq. (Or if you can sell it to Hitchens first and then let us know.)
Posted by: sailor | October 21, 2007 12:12 PM
"The goal is to discourage people from engaging in homosexual practices in the first place, and, when they nevertheless proceed in their homosexual behavior, to encourage them to do so discreetly, so as not to shake the confidence of the community in the polity's ability to provide rules for safe, stable, dependable marriage and family relationships."
I see. He complains, above, about hypocrisy, and here he wants to make hypocrisy the rule of behaviour.
Not only for the homosexuals, either; they must pretend to be straight, but everybody else must pretend that the rules are actually being obeyed.
Wouldn't want to "shake the confidence of the community..."
Sounds exactly like all the fundamentalist churches I knew; sure, the pastor is diddling kids or the elder's wives or ..., but --"Shhh! Wouldn't want to shake the faith of the baby Christians!"
Nauseating.
Posted by: Susannah | October 21, 2007 12:22 PM
Let's not be hasty: Card is clearly right about at least one thing in all that mess: no one can serve two masters.
O'course, I fail to see why anyone would want to serve a master when they could be a free agent, but people seem to have a need to seek out other people that tell them what to do. If you owe allegiance to two different societies/codes of conduct/ethical principles, and they come into conflict, you have to choose between them.
Well, two things: Card is talking about the homosexual community, not homosexuality, so statements like this:
are wrong.His ideas about what the "homosexual community" wants seem to be completely out of whack, though. So in an essay with several dozen important ideas within it, he seems to be correct on *two* of them. And they're fairly trivial ones.
*cough*
Posted by: Caledonian | October 21, 2007 12:23 PM
Geoffrey Miller, Assistant Professor of Psychology, University of New Mexico (New Scientist, 11/18/07):
"... (E)volutionary moral psychology will reveal the social conditions under which human moral virtues flourish. ... Thus, science will kill religion - not by reason challenging faith, but by offering a more practical, universal and rewarding moral framework for human interaction. A naturalistic moral philosophy will replace the rotting fictions of theological ethics. ... (A)pplied evolutionary psychology will help Enlightenment humanism fulfil its long-stalled potential to make us all brighter, wiser, happier and kinder."
Michel Onfray, philosopher (interview in Science and Society, February 2006):
"Atheism is neither immoralism nor amorality; it is another moral system that supposes that the rules of all inter-subjectivity should follow a contract between the actors of the relationship. ... An atheist's morals remain to be shaped. ... I believe esthetics, in particular contemporary esthetics, is an excellent opportunity to give up the theological model for the foundation of a moral system."
Richard Dawkins (Edge.org, January 2006):
"(M)ental constructs like blame and responsibility, indeed evil and good, are built into our brains by millennia of Darwinian evolution. Assigning blame and responsibility is an aspect of the useful fiction of intentional agents that we construct in our brains as a means of short-cutting a truer analysis of what is going on in the world in which we have to live. ... (W)e shall eventually grow out of all this and even learn to laugh at it..."
Posted by: Colugo | October 21, 2007 12:24 PM
Not to imply, of course, that ALL the pastors were doing this; just that this was the attitude to whatever potential scandal arose. And there was always something.
Posted by: Susannah | October 21, 2007 12:24 PM
Excuse me, doesn't Mr. card imply that by a careful definition of "community" and related criteria of belonging one can be "controlled" in any way imaginable? I mean, if I'm a computer programmer I can't possibly serve any "community" of long-haired people, can I? One would only have a basic understanding of algebra of sets to dictate any possible restriction to the "community" as well as to those who don't belong to it. That is, the whole mankind.
Maybe he should spell it "LSD".
Posted by: fcaccin | October 21, 2007 12:28 PM
"I know heterosexual and homosexual couples, and I don't even think much of, let alone obsess over, their private physical behavior. I see them as people who love each other, which ought to be enough for all of us." -PZ
I prefer not to think about the physical side of homosexuality. That should be a private matter between consenting adults.
Posted by: Guy | October 21, 2007 12:29 PM
PZ,
What sloppy thinking to talk about religion in the way you do. It makes about as much sense as talking about atheism being a force for evil or not. You need to get down to specifics before you make such claims. Communism is certainly a force for evil, but that doesn't mean secular humanism is.
It's quite clear that certain religious sects are clearly a force for evil because of the religious tenets they hold. Cleary an religious sect that holds that "God hates fags" or "Apostates must be killed" is a force for evil.
Also, why lump religions together as if all are irrational, theistic, or exclusionary. I know that some religions aren't theistic and some are not exclusionary. I'm not sure that every religion is irrational because I don't know the tenets of every religion on the planet. I see no reason why a religion couldn't be rational.
Posted by: Brian Macker | October 21, 2007 12:46 PM
Correction: The Geoffrey Miller quote is from the 11/18/06 issue of New Scientist.
Posted by: Colugo | October 21, 2007 12:50 PM
I enjoy Card's books, but since he started speaking out politically I confess it's been hard for me to want to buy more of them. Sometimes his attitudes though strike me as really odd, because it's difficult to glean from his novels. I haven't read all of them, of course, but there was one I read many years ago called Songmaster which always struck me as overtly homosexual. Maybe it was just a very strong subtext, I'm not sure anymore, but this kind of tirade from him is very sad.
And frankly, every time I hear someone complain as though the homosexual acts themselves are dirty and depraved, etc. etc., I wonder if he cares that most homosexuals think the exact same thing about straight sex?
Posted by: Betsy | October 21, 2007 12:55 PM
One of my grad school classmates was a high school English teacher. The topic one day in her senior comp class was a short story about sexual identity. Some of the boys in her class were extremely uncomfortable with the story and expressed their disdain for the gay first-person narrator of the story. When she asked them if they knew any gay people, they were quick to disavow any such knowledge and said further that they didn't want to know any such people because it would be impossible to see them without imagining the disgusting things gay people did. The teacher then said, "You call me Mrs. Smith, so you know I'm married. Do you think of the things I do with my husband every time you see me?" The boys shrieked in dismay and babbled incoherently that of course they didn't and why would she even think that?! My classmate is a tall, attractive blonde woman and I daresay several of her senior boys had indeed thought about her in sexual ways. She sparked a real panic in them. I don't know how many of them learned from it.
Posted by: Zeno | October 21, 2007 12:56 PM
What sloppy thinking to talk about religion in the way you do
Take that plank out of your own eye, there, Macker:
Communism is certainly a force for evil
no, it's not. It was made out to be, but no more so than:
It's quite clear that certain religious sects are clearly a force for evil because of the religious tenets they hold
go read Marx, and tell me that all his writing was just a "force for evil".
talk about sloppy thinking.
Posted by: Ichthyic | October 21, 2007 12:57 PM
Card is a moron. You can't serve two masters? WTF does that mean? Is a member of the 'homosexual community' serving a master any more than a member of the 'heterosexual community'?
I'm an atheist, heterosexual and a soldier, I'm also an undergraduate student with the OU, does that mean, according to Card, that I have 4 masters? Can I not be a successful soldier because I'm to busy lusting after members of the opposite sex? Can I not study for an academic award because I am too busy serving as a soldier? (Now there's a master for you!)
Let's face it, Card sets up homosexuality as an all-encompassing dictat as to how a 'member' of that community should behave and act. He fails to see that this is the preserve of his church and that homosexuality is nothing more than one small part of what comprises the individual. I get the idea that he thinks that there are roving gangs of homosexuals out there, sneaking up on poor unsuspecting individuals and converting them to their 'way of life', usually when they are at their most vulnerable. Oh wait, I think I sense some projection...
Posted by: PsychoAtheist | October 21, 2007 12:58 PM
"... (E)volutionary moral psychology will reveal the social conditions under which human moral virtues flourish. ... Thus, science will kill religion - not by reason challenging faith, but by offering a more practical, universal and rewarding moral framework for human interaction. A naturalistic moral philosophy will replace the rotting fictions of theological ethics. ... (A)pplied evolutionary psychology will help Enlightenment humanism fulfil its long-stalled potential to make us all brighter, wiser, happier and kinder."
That is patently absurd. Morality and Ethics are prescriptive not descriptive, there's no way evo-psych can tell us what morality is.
And they wonder why evo-psych gets a bad name.
Posted by: coathangrrr | October 21, 2007 1:00 PM
We are all genetically predisposed toward some sin or another; we are all expected to control those genetic predispositions when it is possible.
He goes on and on about self-control but he can't manage to control his own irrational hatred of homosexuality.
What a surprise! Another fucking fundamentalist hypocrite.
I can't stand these self-righteous pricks!
Posted by: CalGeorge | October 21, 2007 1:04 PM
I prefer not to think about the physical side of homosexuality. That should be a private matter between consenting adults.
Unlike heterosexuality? Which should be public and forced?
But Sailer raises the real question. What exactly is morality? It isn't a scientific principle, as you all surely know. And "atheist morality" is kind of a silly phrase, like "nonJapanese geography" or "non-Impressionist art." Nonsense, literally.
Where exactly does YOUR morality come from? Science? No. Science never has pretended to preach morality. What mom and dad told me? No, too many religious moms and dads. The needs of society? Much too vague. The desires of others? Subjective by definition, and often idiotic, if not insane. And...
I'm not sure that every religion is irrational because I don't know the tenets of every religion on the planet. I see no reason why a religion couldn't be rational.
What exactly would make it a "religion"? As opposed to "things a bunch of people say about the world."
Posted by: Little Boots | October 21, 2007 1:07 PM
"use their sexual powers responsibly"
How did he know my super power?
Posted by: Ric | October 21, 2007 1:09 PM
Okay, I know that "you're just closeted" is one of the sillier responses to homophobic rants. But really, how can one not lodge that allegation when Card writes:
...
...
Posted by: Mithras | October 21, 2007 1:13 PM
Card writes: "who are tempted toward homosexuality"
There is a word for people who think homosexuality is a temptation. We call those people "homosexuals." I know it's juvenile to assume that all anti-homosexuals are closet cases, but the very language some of them use is rather suggestive.
Posted by: Theron | October 21, 2007 1:14 PM
One thing that must be understood about OSC, and many who share his views, is how they see the homosexuality community.
They believe that since homosexuals can't reproduce on their own, they prey on the heterosexual community (ie, mostly children or young adults who are impressionable), in order to sustain their numbers. The homosexual community does this by making youngsters aware of their lifestyle as a 'choice' (which it is, but has sinister implications in religious context), so that when individuals meet there is the dangerous path of acceptance that is available.
That is the basis for the 'community' and 'master' codespeaks. Nevermind the reality, but they see open homosexuality as something of a parasite.
Posted by: Jeffrey Boser | October 21, 2007 1:16 PM
Homophobia is almost solely a religious problem. While many forms of bigotry and other evils can be sustained and propagated by atheists, homophobia seems to require arbitrary religious precepts to make any sense at all.
AIUI this hasn't always been so - there was of course a time when homosexuality was considered a "bourgeois deviation" among Marxists, for example. But though you get the occasional charming comment such as the one from Guy above, you will search far and wide to find an arrantly homophobic atheist.
Posted by: Paul Crowley | October 21, 2007 1:17 PM
It's a good thing that not all Mormons have minds as tightly closed-up as Card's. Otherwise I'd be short some good friends.
Of course, believing everything to be true that a particular church says, is a quick way to end up mightily confused. Recognizing the central truths - most of which are prttey much like the first two PZ has - is the imortant part, and you can throw out the rest. (I'm still trying to understand the Orthodox Jews who complained that running busses, or subway trains, past their synagogue would keep God from hearing their prayers. I was taught that it's what's in your heart that matters ... and all the closed-mind types come up way short.)
Posted by: P J Evans | October 21, 2007 1:18 PM
Card is not a good SF writer, he is willing to sacrifice science for his weird-ass religious views.
Posted by: Graculus | October 21, 2007 1:22 PM
I believe Card's general argument is reasonable, if you limit his arguments to the LDS church. He isn't arguing that homosexuals are bad. He's arguing that the definition of "LDS" is believing that the LDS prophets spoke truly. The LDS prophets said homosexuality is wrong. So if you're going to identify yourself as LDS, it's hypocritical to support homosexuality.
I do disagree with Card about what society as a whole needs to do. The voluntary community of the LDS church should be allowed to set whatever restrictions they like. The nation, on the other hand, should be extremely permissive. Same-sex marriage should be permitted. I'd argue that polygamy should be permitted also, as long as it isn't coerced in any way and no abuse is happening.
Posted by: Andrew | October 21, 2007 1:23 PM
Homophobia is almost solely a religious problem.
And yet communists look down on it too, and sometimes brutally repress it. I think it's a "religious" idea in some ways, and all Communist societies grew out of societies that were religious before them, of course, but I think in general, atheism is perfectly compatible with almost any form of bigotry.
Posted by: Little Boots | October 21, 2007 1:25 PM
My lack of god, this is 17 years old. Hasn't OSC said anything equally bigotted in the near-term? Certainly there's more material than this to work with.
Posted by: Kilted_dad | October 21, 2007 1:33 PM
Clicking on 'talk' in your first line links to 'we_can_come_up_with_better_eth.php', going nowhere.
I can't look at your 'talk', so I have no idea how you could say you didn't think religion was necessarily a force for evil.
This mystified me. How could something based on lies be good? If anyone takes the lies on good faith and then acts on them they will get cheated. How can it ever be good to cheat people who act in good faith?
Posted by: Watt de Fawke | October 21, 2007 1:36 PM
I see no reason why a religion couldn't be rational.
I am surprised no one has pulled you up on this.
The bit that stops them being rational is 'faith'. I.e the bit where you have to think something without evidence.
Posted by: mark | October 21, 2007 1:39 PM
Considering the history of the mormon church, having been driven westward by neighbors who attacked them as perverts and sexual deviants, you'd think they'd want to exhibit tolerance.
-jcr
Posted by: John C. Randolph | October 21, 2007 1:40 PM
Is the only reason a human does not kill another human "fear of consequence"? I think so. There are 2, well, 3 justice systems.
Justice System 1 is the primitive justice system where we sill A kills B and C, being member of B, kills A. Justice is served.
Justice System 2 is the contemporary justice system where A kills B and then society puts A in jail or sentences him to death.
Justice System 3 is the imaginary justice system where the murderer will pay in the afterlife.
A believe that the the only reason an atheist doesn't kill (with motive) is because the of Justice systems 1 and 2. We do not believe in Justice system 3. I don't believe we naturally kill without motive unless we are a sociopath like Mr. Brooks (for those who have seen the movie).
Posted by: Skeptic4u | October 21, 2007 1:41 PM
Even considering a Mormon for President is a sure fire recipe for political disaster. Please examine the creed, and the oaths that Mormon males swear. They are incompatible with political service, since Mormon males basically swear to turn over their political and ethical judgement to the LDS church. And this church, the Latter Day Saints, has in the past asked their male followers to kill in cold blood! And they did so, without question Just the kind of people I want running the US. If Romney is elected, the Mormon church will run America. Or can we have a Mormon show us this is not true, without lying, or obfuscating, of course.
Posted by: Mooser | October 21, 2007 1:42 PM
So, as us atheists congeal and unite, how are we going to come up with our moral code? Is there going to be a vote or something? I mean, to rebut all the religious moral codes don't we need a standard set? Maybe 10?
Posted by: LostInTheWilderness | October 21, 2007 1:46 PM
And yet communists look down on it too, and sometimes brutally repress it. I think it's a "religious" idea in some ways, and all Communist societies grew out of societies that were religious before them, of course, but I think in general, atheism is perfectly compatible with almost any form of bigotry.
Well no. Religion brings it up, sustains it, and provides it for a seemingly inexhaustible succession of dictatorships—that usually can’t wait to implement religion’s well-proven and time-tested framework for oppression—as a means for structurally necessary scapegoating.
Communist regimes and the like have nothing whatsoever to do with rational atheism. They are religion incarnate.
Posted by: gyokusai | October 21, 2007 1:51 PM
The evolution of naturalistic ethics:
In a sense, all ethical systems are naturalistic in origin since there is no supernatural realm imparting ethnic knowledge. (Unless we are dualists or Nature essentialists, everything humans do or think is "natural.") Only a subset of these ethical systems, however, purport themselves to be naturalistic in justification. By that, they assert that they are derived from a naturalistic understanding of the world - that is, scientific, logical, rational, non-theistic, and evolutionist.
But perhaps the modern quest for a "true" naturalistic ethics is folly. "Naturalist" ethics seem to have no firmer grounding than theological ethics. Their principles and precepts change abruptly by era, ideology, and even individual. Perhaps they reflect little more than the competition of ideas based on differential memorability, replicability, and zeal of adherents (aspects of the cultural selectionism discussed by Donald Campbell and others) - especially among elites - in the context of a particular historical moment that includes techno-economic and demographic trends.
If scientific paradigms and technology evolve through competition of ideas with "success" based on effectiveness, the effectiveness of a "naturalistic" ethical system is not a function of how naturalistic, rational, or benign it is, but rather how successful it is in attracting and maintaining followers in a particular time and place - just like any other belief system, including religious faiths and ideologies.
Consider the history of such system, using just a few examples. Do these successive ethical/ideological systems reflect a) truly scientifically derived ethics, b) any kind of trend or tendency, or c) are they just reflections of contemporary social, economic, and intellectual currents as interpreted, extracted, and rationalized by certain subcultures within the intellectual class?
Cult of Reason - Hebert
Dialectical Materialism - Marx
Monism - Haeckel
Fabianism - Webb
Objectivism - Rand
Technocracy - Veblen
Humanist Manifesto I - Dewey
Ecological Ethics - Hardin
Evolutionary Utilitarianism - Singer
Transhumanism - Bostrom
Religious Naturalism - Goodenough
Posted by: Colugo | October 21, 2007 1:53 PM
No matter how hard I have been pressed to "convert" to the homosexual persuasion I have found two retorts which deter even the most ardent pervayer of pucedom.
"What kind of boy do you think I am?" and "I'm saving myself for the man I marry!" Usually takes care of 'em. If that fails "I think I hear my wife calling me!" has gotten me out of some sticky wickets.
But, that was back when I had lot's more of my hair and a lot more of my own teeth. No guy had made a pass at me, except during an attempt to sell me a funeral plot or nursing-home care, for over 15 years! Is there no pity in this world?
Posted by: Mooser | October 21, 2007 1:56 PM
"I prefer not to think about the physical side of homosexuality. That should be a private matter between consenting adults.
Unlike heterosexuality? Which should be public and forced?"
I just think it is in very poor taste to discuss the details in a public setting.
Of course, we do need to teach human reproduction and what counts as child molestation to our children.
Posted by: Guy | October 21, 2007 2:12 PM
How are these guys going to react when scientists eventually discover the genetic components of same-sex sexuality? Do you think they'll go into spasms of denial, or will they reinterpret it as "god's will" somehow?
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | October 21, 2007 2:13 PM
So, as us atheists congeal and unite, how are we going to come up with our moral code?
Y'know... I was sitting around discussing this very topic with a few friends the other day... I'd been telling them about an experiment I did with my second cousins (who are 6 and 9 years old, respectively) in which I got them to come up with a few "ten commandments" that were obviously superior to the ones the jehova cooked up. (#1 was cool: "be nice to puppies, kittens, and small animals")
Someone needs to set up a website with a digg-like interface so that people can suggest "commandments" and vote on them as well. Then always list the top ten at any given time. I wonder if the experiment would work and what we'd wind up with as a shared set of values. My guess is that a community-commandment set would be a lot better than what jehova cooked up. Of course the mormon-woos might put "hate fags" as a commandment and click-bomb it up to #1.
I'd do it except I don't have the web-scripting skills.
Posted by: Marcus | October 21, 2007 2:19 PM
Orson Scott Card IS a terrific science fiction writer. He has won both the Hugo and Nebula awards.
That people here are spouting sour grapes about his literature because of his personal religious views is disappointing, to say the least.
That said, man!
If you think his religious/moral views are confused, just read about his political persuations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orson_Scott_Card
Posted by: Gingerbaker | October 21, 2007 2:26 PM
I am cursed with imagination. Whenever I encounter views like this from people like Card, in my mind they start morphing into ants. Their faces elongate into little tiny mouths and they grow antennae. When they finish talking they fall back into line...left, right, left, right, hup, hup...
To be fair to robots, fearful eyed little lemmings, and goose-stepping Nazis, sometimes they turn into those, too.
(I tend to be a bit antisocial to avoid the constant distraction.)
Posted by: RamblinDude | October 21, 2007 2:33 PM
Re: #28 of Brian Macker -- "Communism is certainly a force for evil, but that doesn't mean secular humanism is"
Brian, you obviously don't know the first thing about communism. Who's version of communism would be the first queston: Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Mao, etc.? Clearly, Stalin and Mao are antithetical to Marx, Lenin and Trotsky in that Stalin "invented" "Socialism in one country" and Mao subscribed and practiced it. This is opposite from Marx's version of a world-wide socialist revolution where nationalism was to be overcome, not endorsed. Lenin wanted Stalin removed from his post as part of his last will and testament and Troksty called Stalin the "gravedigger of the revolution" (which he eventually was) because he knew where Stalin's strategy would lead. So just because Stalin was a monster who came to power largely because the young Soviet Union was virtually destroyed by a coalition of capitalist nations is no reason whatsoever to believe that "communism" is somehow inherently evil.
Go read some Marx, Engles, Lenin and Troksy and some history too. You might learn something.
Posted by: Gene | October 21, 2007 2:39 PM
It's "evil" to suggest that there are better ways of doing things? It's "evil" to have normative concerns about our fellow humans?
I would suggest that this is hardly the case. Your own suggestions that people shouldn't live under the thumb of religion (at least, that's my understanding of your use of the word "evil") would seemingly put you at odds with yourself.
Religion isn't "evil". The problem with religions is 1) that the preponderance of their unique claims about reality are almost certainly simply wrong, which is problematic in its own right. 2) No vetting process for retaining ideas that work and discarding ones that don't. This is why the nonsense of 2000+ years ago has been so easily grandfathered into today's world.
Posted by: Loren Michael | October 21, 2007 2:40 PM
Neat idea. Perhaps seperate postings of the top ten commandments according to religious affiliation--or lack of.
Posted by: RamblinDude | October 21, 2007 2:45 PM
Commandment #1: Thou Shalt Make No Commandments
Commandment #2: Schmuck! Can't you understand English!
Posted by: tristero | October 21, 2007 2:59 PM
Card was a great science fiction writer 20 years ago. His stuff now is well nigh unreadable.
Posted by: Martin | October 21, 2007 3:09 PM
Never liked his novels, now I know why.
SG
Posted by: Science Goddess | October 21, 2007 3:21 PM
"I see no reason why a religion couldn't be rational.
I am surprised no one has pulled you up on this.
The bit that stops them being rational is 'faith'. I.e the bit where you have to think something without evidence.
Posted by: mark"
Mark, Buhddism has a lot varied branches including systems like Zen. The only thing they have that needs an act of faith is reincarnation, but there is nothing in the religion that says you have to believe it. There is no God, there are paths you can try to obtain certain psychological states, but no demand that you believe them. I don't see why the some Buhddists cannot be considered rational.
Posted by: sailor | October 21, 2007 3:29 PM
Card was a credible writer in the 80s. He hasn't written anything worth reading in well over 15 years.
Posted by: RickD | October 21, 2007 3:32 PM
There may indeed be some rational Buddhists, but every single one I've met, be they of the North American converted variety or culturally virgin straight out of the Himilayas, though pleasant and sociable, they were one and all afflicted with almighty doses of flagrant and fantastic woo.
Posted by: Bee | October 21, 2007 3:54 PM
And yet communists look down on it too, and sometimes brutally repress it.
as a sidenote, the leading communist groups in the united states are very pro-queer. you might want to take a look at leslie feinberg's lavender & red series at the worker's world website before assuming such a thing.
http://www.workers.org/lavender-red/