Erick Erickson: As people move further from God, they become "less than human"

[Meeker]

"I’ve largely moved toward the NT Wright view that as people move further and further from God, they b/c less than human." https://twitter.com/EWErickson/status/417817431323578368

One of the leading voices of the conservative movement, ladies and gentlemen

[Ban my account ffs!]

Step 1)  Dehumanize your opponents

Step 2)  Do unforgivable things to them while believing they are subhuman.

Step 3)  There is no step three.  Only back to step 1.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

HQ, and for that matter I'd be very surprised if Erickson actually understood Wright on this.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

I think he is wrong, though I guess I agree where he is coming from. God is the source of human morality, and moving away from God is equivalent to adopting a subjective moral code that can have disastrous consequences. He is dead wrong in his use of the term “human.” Humans are inherently evil; regardless of our relationship with God, we are incapable of being sinless. I don’t see how atheist are any less “human” than a Christian.

Don’t misconstrue this post; Atheists are perfectly capable of being good, moral people. In fact, most Atheists are probably better people than I am. Morality has to have a source, however, and that is why I don’t consider any moral code that explicitly ignores the role of the Creator in the world as shaky.

I’m not a theologian, and I am definite not a student of philosophy either. I’m sure anyone can refute me on these points (and I’d be happy to hear rebuttals on this subject) but I think the point Erick Erickson is trying to make (albeit for not the right reasons-he is just throwing red meat to Evangelicals) is that morality can’t exist without God.

Of course, that still doesn’t mean that Erik Erikson isn’t a huge asshole.

[Ban my account ffs!]

I think he is wrong, though I guess I agree where he is coming from. God is the source of human morality, and moving away from God is equivalent to adopting a subjective moral code that can have disastrous consequences. He is dead wrong in his use of the term “human.” Humans are inherently evil; regardless of our relationship with God, we are incapable of being sinless. I don’t see how atheist are any less “human” than a Christian.

Don’t misconstrue this post; Atheists are perfectly capable of being good, moral people. In fact, most Atheists are probably better people than I am. Morality has to have a source, however, and that is why I don’t consider any moral code that explicitly ignores the role of the Creator in the world as shaky.

I’m not a theologian, and I am definite not a student of philosophy either. I’m sure anyone can refute me on these points (and I’d be happy to hear rebuttals on this subject) but I think the point Erick Erickson is trying to make (albeit for not the right reasons-he is just throwing red meat to Evangelicals) is that morality can’t exist without God.

Of course, that still doesn’t mean that Erik Erikson isn’t a huge asshole.

The point being is that there is no God and we made up "his" moral code.  So such an argument is absolutely retarded no matter how you look at it.

We made it up.  We made it all up.  And we can do both better and worse.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

I think he is wrong, though I guess I agree where he is coming from. God is the source of human morality, and moving away from God is equivalent to adopting a subjective moral code that can have disastrous consequences. He is dead wrong in his use of the term “human.” Humans are inherently evil; regardless of our relationship with God, we are incapable of being sinless. I don’t see how atheist are any less “human” than a Christian.

Don’t misconstrue this post; Atheists are perfectly capable of being good, moral people. In fact, most Atheists are probably better people than I am. Morality has to have a source, however, and that is why I don’t consider any moral code that explicitly ignores the role of the Creator in the world as shaky.

I’m not a theologian, and I am definite not a student of philosophy either. I’m sure anyone can refute me on these points (and I’d be happy to hear rebuttals on this subject) but I think the point Erick Erickson is trying to make (albeit for not the right reasons-he is just throwing red meat to Evangelicals) is that morality can’t exist without God.

Of course, that still doesn’t mean that Erik Erikson isn’t a huge asshole.

"Humans are created in the image and likeness of God and are therefore not inherently evil, but in a fallen state due to original sin that leads to concupiscence and combined with free will, often to sin."

-Dr. TJ in Cleve*

*"Dr." upon attaining his PhD in about four or five years or whatever.

[afleitch]

You can tell by a lot of rhetoric recently (the annual ‘War on Christmas’ act as dummy runs) that people who don’t believe in god are the next target of the religious right/GOP. Pronouncements like this are to be expected.

[PJ]

FQ for fascist quote. To actually believe that someone's beliefs make them less human is ridiculous.

[ElectionsGuy]

Ugh, these comments make me sick.

[DemPGH]

This sort of thing has always been around, it's now making headlines more.

You can tell by a lot of rhetoric recently (the annual ‘War on Christmas’ act as dummy runs) that people who don’t believe in god are the next target of the religious right/GOP. Pronouncements like this are to be expected.

Yup. And you know what? That will be a good thing, because it's the next front on which they will lose. Atheists are almost certainly the least vocal of any demographic in the USA, but there really are plenty here. And by saying things like this and getting the spotlight, these crazies will alienate themselves from a lot of folks in America who are hanging onto the faith by a thread - in other words for reasons that are more social than religious.

[© tweed]

HQ, and for that matter I'd be very surprised if Erickson actually understood Wright on this.

yeah, NT is sufficiently smart and nuanced enough to imagine that he's not responsible for something like this.  poor form at the least on Erickson's part for not pointing to the alleged source so we can evaluate

[Likely Voter]

Republicans really need to stop demonizing growing demographics if they want a future.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Y'know, I thought Christianity was supposed to be about love and brotherhood. This Erickson fellow seems like he would be the furthest from God of all. By demeaning we who do not believe, he rejects the fundamental message of the Bible, and of God.

[Indy Texas]

Is Eric Erickson really in a position to define who is human? I mean look at the guy - he's at least 50% Spam and lunch meat.

[TDAS04]

HQ from an ultra HP.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I bet he thinks that the Pope is much further from god than himself. What a dumbass.

[Person Man]

That's pretty depraved. It sounds like what the Nazis said to justify their  murder of millions of Jews, Gypsies and Homosexuals. What else are you supposed to think when you talk about people being "less human"?

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

HQ, and for that matter I'd be very surprised if Erickson actually understood Wright on this.

yeah, NT is sufficiently smart and nuanced enough to imagine that he's not responsible for something like this.  poor form at the least on Erickson's part for not pointing to the alleged source so we can evaluate

Wright has talked about this idea, similar to CS Lewis, as part of his view of Hell.  IMO Erickson's tweet serves to point out a problem with Wright's view on this in a reductio ad absurdum sort of way.

[Marnetmar]

I think he is wrong, though I guess I agree where he is coming from. God is the source of human morality, and moving away from God is equivalent to adopting a subjective moral code that can have disastrous consequences. He is dead wrong in his use of the term “human.” Humans are inherently evil; regardless of our relationship with God, we are incapable of being sinless. I don’t see how atheist are any less “human” than a Christian.

You could at least post a statement that can actually be proven factual, couldn't you?

In my view, human morality comes from empathy for others. If a definition of morality needs to come to you from a book of rules rather than your own conscience, you're a sociopath.

[afleitch]

I think he is wrong, though I guess I agree where he is coming from. God is the source of human morality, and moving away from God is equivalent to adopting a subjective moral code that can have disastrous consequences. He is dead wrong in his use of the term “human.” Humans are inherently evil; regardless of our relationship with God, we are incapable of being sinless. I don’t see how atheist are any less “human” than a Christian.

You could at least post a statement that can actually be proven factual, couldn't you?

In my view, human morality comes from empathy for others. If a definition of morality needs to come to you from a book of rules rather than your own conscience, you're a sociopath.

Interestingly a high % of actual sociopaths claim their actions stem from specific rules or guidance contrary to social norms that they have absorbed into their own worldview.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

I think he is wrong, though I guess I agree where he is coming from. God is the source of human morality, and moving away from God is equivalent to adopting a subjective moral code that can have disastrous consequences. He is dead wrong in his use of the term “human.” Humans are inherently evil; regardless of our relationship with God, we are incapable of being sinless. I don’t see how atheist are any less “human” than a Christian.

You could at least post a statement that can actually be proven factual, couldn't you?

In my view, human morality comes from empathy for others. If a definition of morality needs to come to you from a book of rules rather than your own conscience, you're a sociopath.

First of all, it was more of a philosophical, not a factual statement. Morality needs to be solid, and I have plenty of reasons why I believe a solid, spiritual source exists that can be explored later.

The statement that "morality comes from a book of rules" is just simply incorrect. Humans around the world, regardless of faith, know that killing a baby is wrong, for some reason. Where does this empathy for others come from? Clearly, it cannot come from humans alone. Humans would kill and eat a baby in a heartbeat if they arbitrated what is moral and what is not. A central source of all goodness in the world exists.

Christians do not worship the Bible; we worship a God. Regardless if it is the Christian God, the Muslim God, or just a spiritual entity in the cosmos that isn’t defined by any particular faith, a solid source exists. The moral code set by the Bible is followed by numerous religions. I can’t think of one religion that says “Thou shall kill.” You talk of empathy for others, but you dodge my key point that it has to come from somewhere other then yourself.

[Deus Naturae]

I think he is wrong, though I guess I agree where he is coming from. God is the source of human morality, and moving away from God is equivalent to adopting a subjective moral code that can have disastrous consequences. He is dead wrong in his use of the term “human.” Humans are inherently evil; regardless of our relationship with God, we are incapable of being sinless. I don’t see how atheist are any less “human” than a Christian.

You could at least post a statement that can actually be proven factual, couldn't you?

In my view, human morality comes from empathy for others. If a definition of morality needs to come to you from a book of rules rather than your own conscience, you're a sociopath.

"Morality exists because God said so" types are indeed frustrating, but what makes your source of morality any more valid then his?

[Deus Naturae]

I think he is wrong, though I guess I agree where he is coming from. God is the source of human morality, and moving away from God is equivalent to adopting a subjective moral code that can have disastrous consequences. He is dead wrong in his use of the term “human.” Humans are inherently evil; regardless of our relationship with God, we are incapable of being sinless. I don’t see how atheist are any less “human” than a Christian.

You could at least post a statement that can actually be proven factual, couldn't you?

In my view, human morality comes from empathy for others. If a definition of morality needs to come to you from a book of rules rather than your own conscience, you're a sociopath.

First of all, it was more of a philosophical, not a factual statement. Morality needs to be solid, and I have plenty of reasons why I believe a solid, spiritual source exists that can be explored later.

The statement that "morality comes from a book of rules" is just simply incorrect. Humans around the world, regardless of faith, know that killing a baby is wrong, for some reason. Where does this empathy for others come from? Clearly, it cannot come from humans alone. Humans would kill and eat a baby in a heartbeat if they arbitrated what is moral and what is not. A central source of all goodness in the world exists.

Christians do not worship the Bible; we worship a God. Regardless if it is the Christian God, the Muslim God, or just a spiritual entity in the cosmos that isn’t defined by any particular faith, a solid source exists. The moral code set by the Bible is followed by numerous religions. I can’t think of one religion that says “Thou shall kill.” You talk of empathy for others, but you dodge my key point that it has to come from somewhere other then yourself.

First of all, your claim about baby-easting savagery as the default of human nature seems dubious to me. Would someone who has been isolated their life and given little to no social education really turn into a toddler-chomping monster if released into society? Also, humans that lived prior to when you believe God "set down the rules" would not kill a baby for no reason (other than perhaps irrational superstition). They would certainly be more willing to let the baby die for the good of the tribe etc, but I'm not buying that prehistoric humans were just a bunch of stupid children, wandering blindly through the night.

Also, I don't know where you get the idea that no religion instructs its adherents to kill. That's just plainly untrue.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

I think he is wrong, though I guess I agree where he is coming from. God is the source of human morality, and moving away from God is equivalent to adopting a subjective moral code that can have disastrous consequences. He is dead wrong in his use of the term “human.” Humans are inherently evil; regardless of our relationship with God, we are incapable of being sinless. I don’t see how atheist are any less “human” than a Christian.

   

You could at least post a statement that can actually be proven factual, couldn't you?

In my view, human morality comes from empathy for others. If a definition of morality needs to come to you from a book of rules rather than your own conscience, you're a sociopath.

First of all, it was more of a philosophical, not a factual statement. Morality needs to be solid, and I have plenty of reasons why I believe a solid, spiritual source exists that can be explored later.

The statement that "morality comes from a book of rules" is just simply incorrect. Humans around the world, regardless of faith, know that killing a baby is wrong, for some reason. Where does this empathy for others come from? Clearly, it cannot come from humans alone. Humans would kill and eat a baby in a heartbeat if they arbitrated what is moral and what is not. A central source of all goodness in the world exists.

Christians do not worship the Bible; we worship a God. Regardless if it is the Christian God, the Muslim God, or just a spiritual entity in the cosmos that isn’t defined by any particular faith, a solid source exists. The moral code set by the Bible is followed by numerous religions. I can’t think of one religion that says “Thou shall kill.” You talk of empathy for others, but you dodge my key point that it has to come from somewhere other then yourself.

First of all, your claim about baby-easting savagery as the default of human nature seems dubious to me. Would someone who has been isolated their life and given little to no social education really turn into a toddler-chomping monster if released into society? Also, humans that lived prior to when you believe God "set down the rules" would not kill a baby for no reason (other than perhaps irrational superstition). They would certainly be more willing to let the baby die for the good of the tribe etc, but I'm not buying that prehistoric humans were just a bunch of stupid children, wandering blindly through the night.

Also, I don't know where you get the idea that no religion instructs its adherents to kill. That's just plainly untrue.

I’ll answer the last statement before I go, since it is the easier question to address. No religion directly instructs people to kill for it, with the exception of Islam (and I don’t think Muslims are bad people, by the way, nor do I have a negative opinion of Islam). Followers of religion, and more importantly, the human leaders, are the ones who bring such opinions and interpretations in. The Bible doesn’t endorse forced conversions, and you will not find one single instance of Jesus calling for a revolution of any type against the Roman occupiers of ancient Palestine. Christianity is a religion of peace, and it is a shame that the Bible thumpers of today have used it to create a twisted justification for intervention in the Middle East.

Before God “officially” laid down the rules, people existed, and the rules still existed. Judaism didn’t start on Mount Sinai. Regardless if you believe the Biblical story of Abraham’s life or not, it is clear that the Jewish faith has existed for a long time. Where and when did this code develop? It couldn’t develop on its own within humans. If morality was subjective, and each of us decided what is right and wrong, we would justify the most horrible crimes imaginable. That’s our nature-we seek to survive. I am not arguing that morality exists “because God says so.” I am arguing that we, as humans, cannot be capable of anything good and that morality must come from something (I believe it is a Deity, but it could be something else) beyond the basic realm of humanity.

[afleitch]

If morality was subjective, and each of us decided what is right and wrong, we would justify the most horrible crimes imaginable.

That's exactly what we've always done.

"Morality exists because God said so" types are indeed frustrating, but what makes your source of morality any more valid then his?

I've tried to answer this in a few previous topics

If you consider free will to be defined by the method in which you define it, why infer a deity at all? Why delegate the concept of free will ‘upwards’ just because we humans consider it a lofty concept? On the matter of universal morality, such a thing does not exist once you start defining precisely what universal means. If we infer that human morality (which is a very difficult thing to determine) is somehow universal, first of all you are making an objective statement by projecting our understanding of what is morally right and wrong at a very base level as somehow being ‘universal.’ Our own morality is determined by our evolutionary need and cannot extend beyond that domain. We are covering the same ground as this has been discussed on here before (but I am aware that either no one reads nor cares to respond to most of what I talk about on here anyway so I’m not fussed in repeating myself ) So therefore we can objectively state that ‘murder of humans by humans = bad’ (with the usual caveats of course) But we cannot say to an animal that reproduces then kills it’s mate or has it’s young burst from it’s abdomen that because their evolutionary niche requires acts of intra-species ‘murder’ that what they do is morally ‘wrong.’ This is where theists start getting messy fingers too. Gods tend to be the ‘givers’ of human morality and seem to act as we do (or indeed are more capricious and without self restraint at times). What creator god can determine a moral code that is entirely objective given that the ‘morality’ on this planet appears to be relative based on evolutionary drive? What about other worlds? Why should we even assume that concepts of love, justice etc preached by god apply to other beings. Would this god send someone to talk about ‘love’ if love was not a tangible concept in that world? If it wasn’t, what would he talk about? What if for their existence, as some evolutionary function for example; hate was a better thing to embrace than love; would he preach hate because it benefits them more than love? What actions and morals are therefore ‘right’ in the universe as a whole? If everything is relative and god is the ultimate source of that, then how on earth can you infer his will?

Even as a metaphor, the story of Eden is one that doesn’t necessarily encapsulate the human experience. There is no definitive moment in our evolutionary history at which man, or specifically ‘a man’ became the first self aware of his kind as self awareness is progressive. Even if there was a specific plateau that mankind collectively reached in which we could now define ‘man A’ as being fully self aware and ‘man B’ as being not self aware, then ‘man B’ never reached self awareness so knew no different and ‘man A’  never knew any ‘ignorance’ and so also knew no different.  I would argue that mankind is essentially still ‘automatons’; we have an evolved sense of the world that is advantageous to us, but the same is true of the fruit fly or the dolphin. We see ourselves as the pinnacle of nature because we set the standards. That is evident in the Genesis story. We still see ourselves in this world as the pinnacle even though we are consciously aware that there are billions of habitable planets and moons in our galaxy alone and that the probability of life that would consider itself to be higher than we is fairly high.

‘Good’ and ‘evil’ are arbitrary. They always have been. Why? Because humans set the standards of what is moral. Now much of what is moral is universal because it is entirely advantageous to us for it to be. We consider it morally wrong to kill (with caveats of course) because we would not function as a society if that was the case. Humans are social animals. Social animals from us, to lions, to geese don’t kill for the sake of it. They kill others of their own kind as we do; for territory, for competition over resources, for self defense, for the defense of infants and over ‘property’ including sexual mates.

Regardless of how sentient we are ‘good and evil’ has always been with us. We cannot assume that we have a more evolved notion that ‘killing is wrong’ when other animals seem to make the same subconscious choice not to kill. Therefore the idea that there was ever a time when we were not aware and simply ‘did’ is not borne out by the human experience. You do not spend your existence willfully ensuring that everything you do is good. You do not agree in your mind, in the space between every heartbeat, that killing is wrong in order not to do it. For the same reasons you don’t think about breathing or think about your heart beating. Humans (and the Humanist in me is speaking here) are naturally ‘good’ by the standards set by ourselves which tend to sit neatly with what is an evolutionary advantage to us (with the curious exception of the sociopath) Our capacity and our ability to learn and empathise with others moderates and tempers our morality. At the same time however, established human society in which power and influence can now be exerted much wider than the immediate family circle has led to innovative ways in which do things which we would consider ‘morally wrong’; that however is also relative to our experience. We can make bombs but we can also build hospitals. Life comes with more and more choices and more and more caveats but you’d be surprised how often people tend to do the good thing even faced with more ‘choices’ than they had to make a year ago. It takes up the same time and cognitive ability today as it did 100,000 years ago when you had far less choices to make. It’s a wonderful progression and it has given us time to rest and think and reason and ponder.