Why not just make him keep doing the job until it’s finished to your satisfaction, then explain that doing it right the first time is much faster than doing it half-assed several times, thus allowing him the time to do more fun things? Here, I’ll give you a short verse for it, and he can worship some anonymous MB poster.
“Done right first is done right fast.”
Or we can get all haiku-like:
Sweep well in winter
Enjoy spring and summer blossoms
Else see you next fall
Or you could just say ‘If it’s worth doing, it’s worth doing properly’…although that does leave it open to the interpretation that it’s not worth doing at all of course!
To be honest, as an atheist, I sometimes thank God for things and have even been known to ask him for help in times of stress. I don’t actually believe that He exists though (and use the capitalisation out of courtesy and clarity) but it is an emotional outlet and part of the human condition I think, to look for guidance when our minds can’t be trusted to help us out. This is where it gets complex.
Aesop’s Fables is a good example and I think is spot on. There are clear morals to many of the tales that demonstrate society at work. I read these as a child and fully understood the message that was being portrayed. Similarly, as a child and now I know many of the parables in the Bible - that doesn’t mean I believe that such things actually happened, but I recognise the meaning behind them which, in general, teaches us about how individual behaviour can benefit society as a whole.
To Hilarity N. Suze, DMC, Voyager (and others)… your advice is excellent in dealing with the specific incident with my son. I’ve employed versions of each of the suggestions you’ve made over the years. My mentioning the sweeping-the-floor incident was to kick off a different discussion, though.
Just to put the specifics to rest regarding my kids: I’ve had long and interesting theological discussions with each of them - they know my reasons for rejecting the God hypothesis. Nature Girl in particular at 10 years old is quite probing in trying to reconcile extended family members’ expressions of religion with the lack of same in our household.
The sweeping-the-floor incident was a point of departure for my thought: Hey, I don’t believe God exists, but I do believe in the practical implications of that verse. Aside from the fact that God does not exist, there is nothing in that verse (treated as metaphor) that I can attack. Does that mean I can’t call myself an atheist. If adopting just one verse does not cross the atheist/theist threshold, how many verses does it take? Can an atheist adopt in toto a theistic framework - or to put it more dramatically: Can an atheist “believe” in God?
Do you, as an atheist, believe in this? I don’t believe God exists, but I believe it. I believe it as worded, just as I believe my wife when she tells me her love for me is as big as the sky. Now, I can try to rephrase it, if you like, to sidestep any mention of Creator, but I’m no Thomas Jefferson.
What Jefferson puts forward can be classified a theistic doctrine. From the false premises of “created equal” and “endowed by their Creator” a truth emerges nonetheless. I believe in that truth. Even if I could effectively rephrase this doctrine, I find value in it as worded and I interpret it with a load of implicit as if’s. If an atheist can adopt a theistic doctrine, does that mean the a- in atheist ONLY means “against the unproven existence of God”?
What else could it mean? Well, Richard Dawkins considers religion to be toxic (I haven’t yet read “The God Delusion” - I’ve only heard a radio interview with Dawkins, so I may be misinterpreting. I stand to be corrected). Does that stem from his philosophical atheistic stance, that is to say, “I am against theism in any form”? In which case, Dawkins would insist on rewording Jefferson’s quote, and he’d insist I translate out mention of God in quoting that verse to my sweep-challenged son.
If, though, atheism only deals with the existence question, then an atheist is free to declare this theistic religion toxic because of its failings, and yet declare that theistic religion valuable because of its merits.
Can I recruit your literary services as I work on my Aesop replacement?
Except that that’s not, generally, what the Rabbi means, and you need to be careful not to fall into the trap of believing that your interpretation of the true sociological meanings are the actual meanings.
Makes me think of discussions here (and elsewhere) about why, really, Jews keep kosher.
“Oh, it’s because pork and shellfish were likely places from which to get sick! That’s why they don’t eat it!”
But, in fact, that is not the reason. The reason is because they were commanded not to. No one then (and certainly now) was doing it for health reasons.
Similarly, the Rabbi in your hypothetical is not making up a rule for selfish or terrestrial reasons and then slapping on God’s name to make it more legitimate. If it wasn’t for God’s command in that regard, that rule would not apply.
Sure, it’s not what the Rabbi has in mind. But if he thinks "The God of our forefathers has commanded this, and so I do it, " and I think, “This is just how it’s done in Jewish society, and so I do it,” what’s the difference? We both act the same way, and for the same reason: it’s the moral thing to do.
What is “God’s command”? I’m an atheist. I don’t think there exists a literal God. If Nature’s Call were to say “Son, God says you must work hard even if no one is watching,” I think the justification for using God there is that that rule is already followed by many, many people. So for me, “God’s command” is “society’s command.”
If I were your kid, if you told me “Whatsoever ye do, do it heartily, as to the Lord, and not unto men” - Colossians 3:23, I would respond thusly:
“God is a concept that came about thousands of years ago. Since we live in modern times, I believe God would instead command the father to get thee down to Home Depot, shell out forty sheckels, and buy a frigging leaf blower so even a son doing a half-assed job can sweep out the garage spotless clean in a tenth the time. - Controvert 1:1”
Like I said, I assume that you use the Lord as a metaphor in the verse. The part about doing anything well is the main point. I have a problem with the use of God in this particular verse, since it becomes pointless in the absence of God. Couldn’t you quote it, then say, while God may not exist, you should work as if someone really important were watching you without you knowing it? And that in the absence of anyone, his sense of quality should be the one watching?
I assume that this kind of thing is what you mean - not that he should work as if there were a literal god looking over his shoulder. Using God as a metaphor (or a curse, or something called out at times of great stress or pleasure) does not a theist make. We’re products of our theistic culture.
Jefferson meant it as a deistic doctrine. Though he was too early for evolution, he and Paine, and I assume Madison, thought God set the universe into motion, and thus was responsible for our inborn rights. Deism is unfalsifiable, but also does not involve specific revelations or rules. Pretty much any moral finding deducible from supposed endowed traits could also be deduced from our rights as thinking, feeling, beings. My reaction to deism has always been that while I don’t see any reason to believe in a deistic god, I also see no reason to argue with someone who does, since their beliefs will affect only them, and because I have absolutely no convincing counterarguments to deism. A world consisting of only deists and atheists would be one I’d be very happy in.
I don’t know what Dawkins would say about deism. I think he might wonder why you would give your son a reason for working that is functionally equivalent to being good for Santa. I haven’t read the God Delusion yet, but I’ve never known him to attack Einstein’s use of God as metaphor.
I don’t understand why you think there is a contradiction. There can be sentences or phrases in any book that you agree with, even if you disagree with the work as a whole.
It’s not that there’s a contradiction. I’m exploring whether the word “atheist” deals with nothing more than the question of existence. It’s a no brainer to say an atheist can agree with a theist on this one point or that one point. It’s the boundary question of how much of a theistic tradition/philosophy/framework one can agree with before switching from atheist to theist. It appears the consensus of everyone here is “everything up to but not including the existence of God.”
Let’s say I really and sincerely believed mankind would do well to act as if a judgemental God was watching, waiting to reward or punish. I taught my kids to act that way. I founded a movement to convince the world to act that way. I’m frequently asked, “Do you really believe in the existence of such a being?” I always answer, “No, but the right way for mankind to live is as if it were true.” Am I an atheist or a theist?
I have, and in fact one of the first points he makes is that we can all believe in God in the sense that Einstein did, and that this meaning should be specifically excluded from his discussions of God in the rest of the book.
To answer the OP - No, of course not.
But… I think that answer only applies in today’s relatively secular society. Thousands of years ago, Religion and Society and The Law were essentially all the same thing. I think a lot of religious rules and stories were written as fables and metaphors, or just succint ways of explaining how to Do The Right Thing. It’s because of people starting to take the stories literally that we ended up with the mess we have today.
Let’s say you founded your movement and it was a global success. You might not believe in a literal God but would all your followers feel the same way? Human nature being what it is, I don’t think it would take long for people to start persecuting and killing because “God said they were evil”.
I think I should probably clarify what I was saying about the origin of religion. I don’t mean to say that relious texts were written as metaphors and that the general public got the wrong end of the stick. It’s more that back in the day, there was no real concept of a mechanistic view of the universe. Everything was described in analogies and metapphor. It’s only now in the age of science that we make a distinction between “made up stories” and “how it really is”.
Okay, you’ve talked me out of it. I’ve cancelled the printing of my last newsletter
Frankly, I’m surprised at the results of this discussion. I really thought the a- in atheism was a rejection at both the existence of God as well the implications for human behaviour that flow from the existence of God. Without the latter part, “theism” is a very simplistic word - capturing no thought deeper than “God exists.”
For example: I’ve recently re-read C.S. Lewis’ planet trilogy. In “Perelandra,” it’s clear his view is it is proper that man be goverened by a being of higher intelligence. I find it surprising that anyone would consider this idea compatible with atheism - as long as they don’t claim (as Lewis believes) that an actual higher intelligence exists.
