Post-theism?

[searcherman]

The second link was a critique of NA.

[Philip Rand]

Actaully searcherman... I don't think it does... look at last comment of the article, they are not ambiguous despite the "seeming" humility:

"In the meantime, as the debate continues, we exhort readers to emulate the epistemic modesty of our Emory University colleague, primatologist Frans de Waal (2013), who addressed this question with the thoughtful uncertainty that it richly deserves:

I’m struggling with whether we need religion. . . . Personally I think we can be moral without religion because we probably had morality long before the current religions came along . . . so I am optimistic that religion is not strictly needed. But I cannot be a hundred percent sure because we’ve never really tried—there is no human society where religion is totally absent so we really have never tried this experiment.

Which for me suggests the conclusion to be: "We have never tried this experiment... so, let's try it!"

[Nunovalente]

Actaully searcherman... I don't think it does... look at last comment of the article, they are not ambiguous despite the "seeming" humility:

"In the meantime, as the debate continues, we exhort readers to emulate the epistemic modesty of our Emory University colleague, primatologist Frans de Waal (2013), who addressed this question with the thoughtful uncertainty that it richly deserves:

I’m struggling with whether we need religion. . . . Personally I think we can be moral without religion because we probably had morality long before the current religions came along . . . so I am optimistic that religion is not strictly needed. But I cannot be a hundred percent sure because we’ve never really tried—there is no human society where religion is totally absent so we really have never tried this experiment.

Which for me suggests the conclusion to be: "We have never tried this experiment... so, let's try it!"

I'm not sure this is true. Many a regime has suppressed or tried to eliminate religious freedom from the public sphere over history. Look at the results. People can be moral, without being religious. But that's not the same as being moral without religion, because much or what we know to be moral originated in religion.

Jesus radically said, "Do not repay evil for evil. Do good to your enemies." This moral value has its root in the judeo Christian religion. It's now embedded in western society. It's not humanist, it's not natural, it's not secular.
We treat criminals, those who commit the wicked evil upon other humans, not by the same measure, but with dignity, fairness, and with good, not repaying evil with evil.

[searcherman]

The New Atheists don't really like de Waal. He's saying that one can be moral without religion. He could be wrong about saying it's never been tried. North Korea might be an example. Although the poor folks there are told that their great leader can read their minds. I don't believe de Waal is advocating experimenting that, that would be a nightmare.

The point of the paper is that the New Atheists use sloppy methodology in this hypothesis of religion being dangerous to society.

[Philip Rand]

Nunovalente....

No, you are incorrect in your interpretation...

You say:  "...much or what we know to be moral originated in religion."

The authors would counter: "...we can be moral without religion because we probably had morality long before the current religions came along"

So, your argument is defeated by the authors position...

Philosophically the authors are confused... they are using "science" to garner "evidence"... this is clearly not the approach Massimo advocates... and it is purely based on pseudo-science... it is New Atheism.

The New Atheists don't really like de Waal. He's saying that one can be moral without religion. He could be wrong about saying it's never been tried. North Korea might be an example. Although the poor folks there are told that their great leader can read their minds. I don't believe de Waal is advocating experimenting that, that would be a nightmare.

The point of the paper is that the New Atheists use sloppy methodology in this hypothesis of religion being dangerous to society.

I don't think that matters searcherman... this is just a means to an end... the end being... the destruction of a way of life... therefore New Atheism walking quietly with a big stick...