Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Would you like to see the death of religion.
Options
Comments
-
In fairness, frequently it is. There’s frequently an apparent assumption that things will go sweeter once people work things out on the basis of reason. To which a reasonable response would seem to be ‘Marxism worked out a whole load of stuff based on reason, and it didn’t seem to hold up too well for them’.
You are still missing the point. Its not about reason vs supernatural
You kinda hit on the wider issue with your comment about "things will go sweeter."
Unquestioning faith in Marxism as a system to improve society is as bad as unquestioning faith in God as a force that will improve society.
The belief that a system, any system, is some how perfect, and that for things to go well one must follow it, is the problem.
This is an attitude that one finds in religion (try arguing with a theist that God is in fact wrong) and it is also found in ideas such as Communism, or at least Communism as found in the USSR.
The issue is not in arguing over which system is perfect, it is in realizing that no system is in fact perfect or infallible.0 -
In fairness, frequently it is. There’s frequently an apparent assumption that things will go sweeter once people work things out on the basis of reason. To which a reasonable response would seem to be ‘Marxism worked out a whole load of stuff based on reason, and it didn’t seem to hold up too well for them’.
I’m still happily thick about the whole thing, while it is of abiding interest to me. I don’t actually know what’s correct, but I’m open to the possibility that humans operate best when deluded about the nature of their existence.
Ah now that is intersting. I don't agree but I think you're kind of right...
I wouldn't say that people are happeir about being deluded, I would say that the majority of people feel safer when in a state of delusion and safety gives them the consistancy they need to get by and therfore a sense of happiness but it's usually just a pretense I believe.
Fear is the problem, multi faceted layers of fear. Fear of existence, fear of death, fear of the unknown and what sometimes seems like the unknowable.
All those probelms are erased with religon and it's great big catch-all explanations. People simply fall into the comfort of conformity, a life where there is a defined rule set and all they have to do is play by the rules. The more memebers the better, there should be noone outside the circle. An unquestionable sacred dogma is in place so the future remains the same. Communism is similar but it tried to break traditions that were understood by the masses and introduce ideas that weren't. That's where it fails. It has no big picture, no plan of salvation. Idealistically it encouraged new ways of thinking that were more modern. People in general don't want to let go of religon, it's their safety net and in some ways it's all they might ever understand.schuhart wrote:After all, persistence for thousands of years in the face of reason must suggest the possibility that religious faith confers some evolutionary advantage.Indeed, but that leads into the obvious question of ‘what are you for’? Let me say, I’m on as much of a cop-out myself at present. Maybe we should aim to innoculate people with mild religion, in the hope of making them immune to the hard stuff. Or maybe that would just give them a taster, and make them candidates for the hard stuff when the vaccine wore off.
I even wonder, and would hope, that the correct response is actually to invite people to consider reality to the extent that we are able to perceive it and pragmatically work it out from there. Maybe I’m utterly wrong, but I can be a bit of a romantic about that.
What do you think?
Imagine trying a mass communication inviting people to answer the question of how matter seems to have realised itslef? That may appear scientific but i think it's more metaphyical and more important than any religon. But that is a perplexing question for anyone to answer. The general ignorance of mass modern popular culture would find it utterly impossible to come to terms with it I imagine. To grapple with the idea that everything they believe in is insignificant, which it most certainly is. That's another communist idea btw, the general insignificance of the earth and by that matter, us. Most people probably still believe the earth is the center of universe, even those who taken basic science in school. The sad truth is that people are universally determined to shut their minds to things which warp their perception of reality. It's the fear thing again....0 -
-
0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Yes - through proactive secularismI could go on and on (and frequently do) but I'll try to limit it just to one point.
Indeed, no-one can argue with that. I think the problem is that still doesn’t give a satisfactory ‘result’, as we find ourselves shrugging nonchalantly at every question (including, I stress, me).Wicknight wrote:The issue is not in arguing over which system is perfect, it is in realizing that no system is in fact perfect or infallible.
Faith just means we’re trusting in an amount of inherited tradition. If it has been inherited this far it can’t be totally bad for your health, but it comes with stuff that just makes very little sense. Reason is compromised because we don’t and can’t know everything, but (like they say) at the same time it seems to keep airplanes flying.
If our position is that we know reason and faith are both flawed, we’re being no more than honest. At the same time, stuff needs to be decided on some basis and the only alternatives seem to be reason and faith.
Take any amount of questions. Should abortion be legal and, if so, should any conditions apply? In truth, we can only shrug nonchalantly as there simply isn’t a certain answer. Do we still shrug if an infant is at risk of infection because a Rabbi plans to suck blood from his circumcised penis? Do we still shrug if someone else wants to mutilate a daughter’s genitals as it will assist her in leading an appropriately chaste life before marriage?
Even in setting that out, I know that I’m falling into the trap of proposing prohibitions. (ie ‘should we prohibit or limit abortion’, ‘should we prohibit or limit circumcision’). But what I’m trying to feel out is whether its realistic to fill that vacuum left after faith because if we don’t, I’ve a feeling something less benign will (and possibly already is).0 -
Not all beliefs - just fundamentalist stuff.The sensitivity isn't really over whether Marxism has an atheist outlook, but a 'sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander' problem. PDN, and indeed the rest of the theists, get hot under the collar if one says 'hey, you lot did the crusades/inquisition/whatever' - their point being that those weren't really Christians, they are not those Christians, or in PDN's case, not even the same type of Christian. I don't think that's unfair (except possibly in one or two cases, where I think they probably are exactly that kind of Christian).
If that's acceptable, is the same not true (and truer) of most of us and Marxist/Stalinist/Maoist atheism? I don't agree with atheism being forced on people, I don't agree with the suppression of religion, I'm not Marxist, Maoist, or Stalinist - why then should I allow PDN to tar me with the brush he rejects for himself? It's rank hypocrisy - from a man who decries the hypocrisy of others.
Ah hold back on the indignation, will you? I wasn't tarring you with anything.
I posted specifically with a quote indicating that I was replying to a comment by Karen - a comment to the effect that she wants courageous and compassionate atheists to convince Christians how wrong they are to engage in missionary activity.
The quote from CAA referred specifically to the imprisoning of a cross cultural missionary in China. Therefore it was relevant to Karen's quote. I'm just wondering how her compassionate and courageous atheists are going to convince Christians not to engage in missionary activities. So far the only methods I've seen are that employed in this case (imprisonment), the posting of falsified history lifted from a Hindu fundamentalist website, and a link to an inaccurate propaganda video. Not very convincing for me, I'm sorry to report.
I think it's reasonable for me to post with reference to this until Karen, or someone else, could suggest a method by which compassionate and courageous atheists might undertake this dissuasion of missionaries (preferably one that doesn't involve imprisonment or spreading untruths).0 -
Yes - through proactive secularismAh hold back on the indignation, will you? I wasn't tarring you with anything.
I posted specifically with a quote indicating that I was replying to a comment by Karen - a comment to the effect that she wants courageous and compassionate atheists to convince Christians how wrong they are to engage in missionary activity.
The quote from CAA referred specifically to the imprisoning of a cross cultural missionary in China. Therefore it was relevant to Karen's quote. I'm just wondering how her compassionate and courageous atheists are going to convince Christians not to engage in missionary activities. So far the only methods I've seen are that employed in this case (imprisonment), the posting of falsified history lifted from a Hindu fundamentalist website, and a link to an inaccurate propaganda video. Not very convincing for me, I'm sorry to report.
I think it's reasonable for me to post with reference to this until Karen, or someone else, could suggest a method by which compassionate and courageous atheists might undertake this dissuasion of missionaries (preferably one that doesn't involve imprisonment or spreading untruths).
I think, given your record of commentary on the matter of state atheism and China in particular, you would have been better off clarifying the point you were making. While it was clear that you were replying to Karen, you might equally well have been commenting on the "compassionate and courageous" nature of atheism.
Having said that, I retract my indignation, of course, based as it was on my misinterpretation. I'm sure any lack of clarity was accidental.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Indeed, no-one can argue with that. I think the problem is that still doesn’t give a satisfactory ‘result’, as we find ourselves shrugging nonchalantly at every question (including, I stress, me).
You don't have to shrug nonchalantly, but at the same time its not a good idea to say "I have the answer, yes I'm certain its the definite answer, it is the answer the voice in my head said so, now everyone bow down and listen"If our position is that we know reason and faith are both flawed, we’re being no more than honest. At the same time, stuff needs to be decided on some basis and the only alternatives seem to be reason and faith.
Well I'll take reason over faith. Faith is too personal. What you may believe you might not even truly understand yourself why exactly you believe it. Reason requires explanation by default, and exists independently to the emotions of the person. You might not agree with a reason I give for something, but at least you will understand it between that "The voice in my head, that I interpret as god, says so" That might work for one person, but to another person it is meaningless0 -
You don't have to shrug nonchalantly, but at the same time its not a good idea to say "I have the answer, yes I'm certain its the definite answer, it is the answer the voice in my head said so, now everyone bow down and listen"
Well I'll take reason over faith... ....
oh we've got to
If we don't then we'll never get anywhere, faith is a position of knowing all the answers, or at least saying a powerful sky god knows all the answers..
reason is a position of saying that we know very little but (as has been seen from history) we can slowly discover the rudimentary principles of the universe..
Just imagine if poor old Galileo had've chosen faith over reason...0 -
Advertisement
-
Did someone say free ice cream?????? :eek::eek::eek::eek:
Yay!
Ah ice cream, memories... :rolleyes:0 -
Not all beliefs - just fundamentalist stuff.stevejazzx wrote: »Just imagine if poor old Galileo had've chosen faith over reason...
He did. Reason would have convinced him that he would be better to keep quiet and avoid persecution, but his deep religious faith drove him to continue his research. Good chap, Galileo - a real inspiration for me.0 -
Yes, except for my religion.oh, you're *good*0
-
To get a bit more serious, i'm going to ignore the past two pages i just read and give my reply to the topic posted.
I don't want to abolish religion. Or kill it. I'd abolish propaganda and brainwashing pertaining to religion, and the ignorance of many religious people towards logic and reason, but not religion itself.
1. It would do people harm by restricting their personal faith.
2. A major part of all religions is the social aspect, many people get closer to their fellow human beings through religion.
3. If you have peace of mind, no religion can bother you. If you let things affect you, they will. I'm not talking in the physical sense, just in the mental sense of hating religion etc.
4. People who use religion as a way to hurt other people might be less discriminate, giving less indication of when or where crimes may occur.
Hope you take those points into consideration.
0 -
He did. Reason would have convinced him that he would be better to keep quiet and avoid persecution, but his deep religious faith drove him to continue his research. Good chap, Galileo - a real inspiration for me.
...so when the church 'disagreed' with him and he continued that was his religous faith was it? I don't think so, in fact, if you think about, only an act of non-faith could've satrted it all in the first place!0 -
You both have different points of view and neither will concede the other. Its very off topic, can't you make one on gallileo yourselves?
Or listen to bohemian rhapsody repeatedly. :rolleyes:0 -
Yes - through proactive secularism
Thank you for your concern!You both have different points of view and neither will concede the other. Its very off topic, can't you make one on gallileo yourselves?
This thread is 30 pages long - a few tangential discussion aren't something to be concerned about.0 -
Yes - through proactive secularismYou both have different points of view and neither will concede the other. Its very off topic, can't you make one on gallileo yourselves?
Ah, if we made a new thread every time we either wandered off-topic, or discovered we had different points of view and wouldn't concede, we would have several thousand threads about two posts long each.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Not all beliefs - just fundamentalist stuff.stevejazzx wrote: »...so when the church 'disagreed' with him and he continued that was his religous faith was it? I don't think so, in fact, if you think about, only an act of non-faith could've satrted it all in the first place!
Yes, it certainly was his religious faith. Galileo's work was firmly based on his conviction that the world was a product of a personal, rational Creator who disposed everything according to weight, measure, and number. That is confirmed by Galileo's own devotional writings up to his death, by Dava Sobel (author of the wonderful Galileo's Daughter) and by his close disciple Vincenzio Viviani who wrote, "On the night of Jan. 8, 1642, with philosophical and Christian firmness he rendered up his soul to its Creator, sending it, as he liked to believe, to enjoy and to watch from a closer vantage point those eternal and immutable marvels which he, by means of a fragile device, had brought closer to our mortal eyes with such eagerness and impatience."
All the evidence points to the fact that Galileo had a firm faith in God and the Bible, while falling foul of both the ecclesiastical authorities and of the prevailing scientific orthodoxy of his day. That's why I find him so inspiring.0 -
Yes - through proactive secularismIts turning into a very interesting thread from my perspective, which probably means everyone else can’t stay awake.
Indeed, but doesn't religion also potentially contain an amount of accumulated thought. Hence, at any one moment, the answers attributed to the sky god can claim a track record. Think of the attitude expressed in that song ‘Give me that old time religion, it was good for the Hebrew children and its good enough for me’.stevejazzx wrote: »faith is a position of knowing all the answers, or at least saying a powerful sky god knows all the answers..
I think that's a fair description of our hope, but in the short term we have to accept that our understanding will be necessarily incomplete. In the meantime we’ve got a Rabbi who reckons there’s nothing wrong with the traditional penis-sucking approach to circumcision. Do we need to stop him? Is reason any better a guide than faith into what tolerance of the beliefs of others means?stevejazzx wrote: »reason is a position of saying that we know very little but (as has been seen from history) we can slowly discover the rudimentary principles of the universe..
Indeed, but I suppose the problem is some matters need to be decided. We either decide the Rabbi is free to suck away at the risk of infecting the child or we decide any such practice is child abuse. We have no way of being certain which is the right course – but we cannot avoid responsibility for the outcome. That said, I don’t think there’s terrible disagreement between us on this particular point.You don't have to shrug nonchalantly, but at the same time its not a good idea to say "I have the answer, yes I'm certain its the definite answer, it is the answer the voice in my head said so, now everyone bow down and listen"
Except this seems to then bring us back in a bit of a circle. Enter Karl Marx, who says “I’ve got it all worked out. There’s not a word you have to take on trust – I’ve set it all out in my voluminous works.” Lots of fine minds follow his logic and agree with him. And we all know where that ends, which is not exactly a vote of confidence for reason.Reason requires explanation by default, and exists independently to the emotions of the person. You might not agree with a reason I give for something, but at least you will understand it between that "The voice in my head, that I interpret as god, says so"
Religion, on the other hand, can claim to embody the accumulated commonsense of generations. Even our mates the blood-sucking circumcisers seem to have moderated their practices by gargling with disinfectant and/or sucking through a tube to reduce the risk of infection.
Also, we have to acknowledge that religion has featured in our public life so I’m not sure we can seize on liberal democracy and say that’s equally a product of reason as I’m not sure that it’s a product of pure reason. Our own constitution, as we know, certainly used to invoke God as an inspiration (I don’t know if it still does). I like the opening lines of the American Declaration of Independence as an expression of human freedom, but even there they talk about people being ‘endowed by their creator’ with inalienable rights. So they might have a secular Government, but an inspiration seemed to be the idea that this reflected the value God had instilled in people as individuals.
That said, you’ll understand I’m saying all this from a perspective where I don’t actually hold religion to be true. I just wonder if its necessary.
I always contested the idea that there are no athiests in foxholes. Certainly that's where I'd be hiding once the shooting starts.PDN wrote:compassionate and courageous atheists0 -
Advertisement
-
Yes, it certainly was his religious faith. Galileo's work was firmly based on his conviction that the world was a product of a personal, rational Creator who disposed everything according to weight, measure, and number. That is confirmed by Galileo's own devotional writings up to his death, by Dava Sobel (author of the wonderful Galileo's Daughter) and by his close disciple Vincenzio Viviani who wrote, "On the night of Jan. 8, 1642, with philosophical and Christian firmness he rendered up his soul to its Creator, sending it, as he liked to believe, to enjoy and to watch from a closer vantage point those eternal and immutable marvels which he, by means of a fragile device, had brought closer to our mortal eyes with such eagerness and impatience."
All the evidence points to the fact that Galileo had a firm faith in God and the Bible, while falling foul of both the ecclesiastical authorities and of the prevailing scientific orthodoxy of his day. That's why I find him so inspiring.
Oh I have no doubt he believed in god, for in the lack of all other evidence the natural thing for him to do with his findings and beliefs would've been be to tie them into something that god had done, it wasn't a moment of renunciation but one contestation and objection against institutional mandate and dictate, that was his victory..so
you are missing my point (probably deliberately) and that is that he decided that his faith wouldn't make him blind or oblivious to the world, he essentially decided that the establishment were wrong in not encouraging curiosity and investigation into the nature of the universe....it wasn't a moment where he was turning away from god but one where he was searching for him and his work...now that was the 17th century and we couldn't expect galileo to rationalise away god all in one go but he sure as hell (sorry!) helped the process of thinking outside the rigid boundaries set down by religon..in his innocence he sought only to refine them or add to them but others later on, when more the tangible evidence was dicovered, they blurred the boundaries so much that now the very notion of a sky god who made everything seems unlikley to all the current crop of great minds...name a great physicist and you're naming an atheist or agnostic at least...galileos faith might have stayed with but he never considered it an obstacle to his investigtion...he compartmentalised it brilliantly...just like all intelligent religous people do~!0 -
Yes - through proactive secularismYou don't have to shrug nonchalantly, but at the same time its not a good idea to say "I have the answer, yes I'm certain its the definite answer, it is the answer the voice in my head said so, now everyone bow down and listen"
Well I'll take reason over faith. Faith is too personal. What you may believe you might not even truly understand yourself why exactly you believe it. Reason requires explanation by default, and exists independently to the emotions of the person. You might not agree with a reason I give for something, but at least you will understand it between that "The voice in my head, that I interpret as god, says so" That might work for one person, but to another person it is meaningless
I would say that every system of morality has at least two features - a founding axiom (from which the system works out), and a definition of person (to whom the system applies).
Inspired systems of morality
In the case of theistic systems ('inspired' moralities), we normally have as the axiom "what God says", and as the person "who God says". Murder is wrong because God says so, but killing animals is not wrong because God does not say they are people. The defining characteristic of 'person' is that of having an immortal soul/being made in the likeness of God.
There is no a priori logical problem with such systems - they are certainly moral systems. Where they have problems is in the following general areas:
1. Uncertainty: how do we come to knowledge of the will of God? What source is definitive? How do we interpret that source? Which definition is definitive?
2. Essential Incompleteness: even with a definitive source, and definitive interpretation, there is no system of inspired morality for which a complete guide to every possible moral question exists. The answers to such questions must be extrapolated from a diversity of existing rules without reference to the principal axiom of the system.
3. Contradiction: even with a definitive source, and definitive interpretation, there is no system of inspired morality whose source does not contain occasional contradictions - or rather, scriptures that represent God as apparently desiring both x and y, where x and y contradict each other. Such contradictions are particularly likely to afflict answers to moral questions extrapolated from scripture with no direct relevance to the question, since scripture outweighs extrapolation.
4. Limitation: such systems, by virtue of their primary axiom, are self-limiting to believers. Non-believers and atheists may choose to accept certain rules from such moral systems, but non-believers will certainly reject any rules that clash with precepts handed down by their god. Two such inspired systems are very difficult to reconcile.
5. Arbitrariness: such systems, by their nature, can only be known 'completely' (see 2) by knowing all of God's words. Unless one is accepted as directly by inspired by God, one cannot claim to know God's will. To avoid the obvious difficulties this causes in making everyday moral judgments, the believer attributes to himself a small share of divine inspiration.
Customary systems of morality
Similar problems beset what we might call 'organic' or 'customary' systems of morality, which have evolved and accreted over time through usage. The founding axiom of such systems may be considered to be 'what is customary is what is correct', and the definition of 'person' will be similarly customary:
1. Uncertainty: there may be multiple traditions within the culture, each giving a different customary guide on a particular question - which is definitive. Further, because there is no guiding axiom to the system, novel situations or possible persons require interpretation by skilled sources, who may give conflicting resolutions.
2. No Essential Incompleteness: the major bonus of such systems is their probable completeness except when faced with new moral dilemmas
3. Contradiction: almost certainly - indeed, such systems are quite likely to consist of a mass of contradictions bound together only by custom. It may be, for example, lawful to kill persons of a described type at particular times and not others.
4. Limitation: such systems, by virtue of their primary axiom, are self-limiting to particular cultures. Persons from other cultures may choose to accept certain rules from such moral systems, but those from other cultures will certainly reject any rules that clash with precepts handed down by their culture. Two such organic systems are, however, less difficult to reconcile than inspired or rational systems, since the mere co-existence of two cultural systems over time will lead to an acceptable common usage which is itself authoritative.
5. Arbitrariness: such systems, by their nature, can only be known 'completely' (see 2) by knowing every cultural tradition. In general, only those who have assimilated their cultural traditions completely will be considered authoritative enough to make a 'new' answer.
Rational systems of morality
Systems that are based on so-called 'rational' precepts are, of course, based on equally arbitrary axioms, such as 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you'. These suffer from slightly fewer practical problems compared to inspired systems:
1. No Uncertainty: no source.
2. No Essential Incompleteness: it should be possible to work out the answer to any moral question logically from the founding axiom. It may be impossible to resolve some questions logically in this way, but the same is true of inspired systems.
3. No Contradiction: systems built up logically from the fundamental axiom should only suffer contradiction through flawed logic.
4. Limitation: such systems, by virtue of their primary axiom, are self-limiting to those who accept the choice of fundamental axiom. Two such rational systems are very difficult to reconcile.
5. No Arbitrariness: such systems, by their nature, can be derived completely from first principles - at least in theory. Starting from the same axiom, two moralists should arrive at the same answer to any given question.
Hmm. This didn't start off to be a disquisition on the types of moral systems, and is in any case bound to be simplistic (there are three types of system - and I'm a Celt).
The obvious advantage of inspired and organic systems is their authority, within their limits. Such authority is, however, open to dispute the moment one steps outside the religion or culture - outside those limits, the systems lack all force.
Personally, I see no reason to adopt an inspired system, or accept its answers to moral questions, unless I am persuaded of the religion in question. I am not so persuaded of any religion, so I reject their moral systems likewise.
Similarly, I do not consider myself as coming from any particularly strong cultural tradition, being, as I am, a socially atomised city dweller. I would, again, reject the authority of any such customary system of morality.
Which leaves me with the question "do I need a moral system?" I would say I do, which leaves me with the rational systems - and a choice of axioms - and this post is quite long enough already.
I suspect that what I am trying to do here is to make the point that someone who finds themselves "shrugging nonchalantly at every question" is a person without any moral system. Such a person may well try, by themselves, to come to a personal system of morality through the 'organic' approach - acquiring over time a set of 'moral habits' that they find personally comfortable with. The authority of such a system is weak, however, and the results uncertain, arbitrary, contradictory, and limited in scope.
In conclusion, therefore: Schuhart, you have no morality. That's why you can't answer moral questions. Pull your socks up, laddie.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Not all beliefs - just fundamentalist stuff.stevejazzx wrote: ».name a great physicist and you're naming an atheist or agnostic at least.
Presumably winning the Nobel Prize for Physics fails to qualify one as a great physicist in your book?
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1997/phillips-autobio.html
The relevant section reads:William D. Phillips wrote:In 1979, shortly after Jane and I moved to Gaithersburg, we joined Fairhaven United Methodist Church. We had not been regular church-goers during our years at MIT, but Ed and Jean Williams invited us to Fairhaven and there we found a congregation whose ethnic and racial diversity offered an irresistible richness of worship experience. Later that year, our first daughter, Catherine, now known as Caitlin, was born. In 1981 Christine was born. Our children have been an unending source of blessing, adventure and challenge. Their arrival, at a time when both Jane and I were trying to establish ourselves in new jobs, required a delicate balancing of work, home, and church life. Somehow, our faith and our youthful energy got us through that period.
Oh, BTW, the Ed Williams he mentions is Edwin R. Williams, research physicist in the Fundamental Quantum Metrology Division of the NIST Electrical and Electronic Engineering Laboratory in Maryland.0 -
Yes - through proactive secularism
You are right, assuming morality to be something different to self-interest. I agree I must do better – although, paradoxically, I cannot think of a coherent reason why I should feel so inclined.Scofflaw wrote:Schuhart, you have no morality. That's why you can't answer moral questions. Pull your socks up, laddie.
Your analysis is interesting, but I think the point that interests me most is the arbitrary nature of the axiom. It could be all people are equal or all animals are equal or my nation is tops or that old time religion is good enough, with no objective basis for saying which is better. I think we know that reason doesn’t particularly help to decide what the axiom should be – so it’s down to whatever feels right. That doesn’t resolve the issue of how to mediate between different axioms, as there’s no reason to assume that everyone will feel right about the same axiom.
And, in fairness to religion for a moment, it’s not completely arbitrary. For a religion to be successful it must have satisfied whatever subjective process causes individuals to adopt a religion and pass it on to their children. Maybe religion is positively harmful – but if it was you’d expect people who adopt and pass on religions to be operating on some massive disadvantage compared to rationalists, which does not immediately seem to be the case. Hence, pragmatically, religion can claim to have been doing something useful in human affairs, or it would not have thrived.
Just for clarity, there’s two different points on my mind here. One is simply the theoretical question – that there is no objective axiom, and no way of deciding between conflicting axioms. Hence, ultimately, both religion and atheism involve (to different extents) human reason being applied after some arbitrary standard has been established. I suppose the question is really whether it’s better or worse to ignore religion when establishing that arbitrary standard – I cannot think of an objective principle that can choose between arbitrary standards. Fred Phelps has as much status in the scheme of things as Karl Marx or Scofflaw.
The other is just the practical question. Religion makes for successful people, which assures its future. You’ll understand, there’s no reason for this practical question to necessarily ‘have a solution’. It may simply be that people operate best when deluded, and that’s how things are with nothing that can be done to change it.0 -
Yes - through proactive secularismYou are right, assuming morality to be something different to self-interest. I agree I must do better – although, paradoxically, I cannot think of a coherent reason why I should feel so inclined.
Well, yes, that's a question - should I have a moral system, or why should I have a moral system?Your analysis is interesting, but I think the point that interests me most is the arbitrary nature of the axiom. It could be all people are equal or all animals are equal or my nation is tops or that old time religion is good enough, with no objective basis for saying which is better. I think we know that reason doesn’t particularly help to decide what the axiom should be – so it’s down to whatever feels right. That doesn’t resolve the issue of how to mediate between different axioms, as there’s no reason to assume that everyone will feel right about the same axiom.
Sure. Like you, I don't think there is an objective standard of morality. Anyone who claims to have an objectively better morality is simply indicating a preference.And, in fairness to religion for a moment, it’s not completely arbitrary. For a religion to be successful it must have satisfied whatever subjective process causes individuals to adopt a religion and pass it on to their children. Maybe religion is positively harmful – but if it was you’d expect people who adopt and pass on religions to be operating on some massive disadvantage compared to rationalists, which does not immediately seem to be the case. Hence, pragmatically, religion can claim to have been doing something useful in human affairs, or it would not have thrived.
Hmm. That's not actually the sense in which I meant arbitrary - it was really to indicate that the various rules of the system had no necessary inter-relation except their derivation from the same source. An arbitrary system, in that sense, is one that can only be described by enumerating every single rule - you cannot simply derive the rules from the fundamental axiom.Just for clarity, there’s two different points on my mind here. One is simply the theoretical question – that there is no objective axiom, and no way of deciding between conflicting axioms. Hence, ultimately, both religion and atheism involve (to different extents) human reason being applied after some arbitrary standard has been established. I suppose the question is really whether it’s better or worse to ignore religion when establishing that arbitrary standard – I cannot think of an objective principle that can choose between arbitrary standards. Fred Phelps has as much status in the scheme of things as Karl Marx or Scofflaw.
Up to a point, that's true. It may well be impossible to determine some universal standard by which Fred Phelps' moral system could be described as 'worse' or 'better' than any other.
It is not, however, necessary to find any such standard - I judge Fred Phelps' moral system by my own moral system, and find his immoral. Fred Phelps, of course, returns the compliment, but that is irrelevant to me. To some extent, this is the point of having a moral system - to be able to say "Fred Phelps is wrong" - well, things like that, anyway.The other is just the practical question. Religion makes for successful people, which assures its future. You’ll understand, there’s no reason for this practical question to necessarily ‘have a solution’. It may simply be that people operate best when deluded, and that’s how things are with nothing that can be done to change it.
I suspect a large number of people do indeed operate better when deluded, and wouldn't be happy any other way. Religion takes care of the existential uncertainty of life - and uncertainty is a source of stress, depression, and lowered effectiveness.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Yes - through proactive secularism
I think I see what you mean, but may not. Is it that a rational system starts at its opening proposition (say, my nation is tops) and that everything is then derived from that point? Hence, an individual judgement or rule can be logically traced back to that proposition. If I’m challenged why its moral for my country to invade another, I simply say ‘my nation is tops, therefore we have a greater right to territory than any other, hence they are actually immoral to oppose our invasion'.Scofflaw wrote:That's not actually the sense in which I meant arbitrary - it was really to indicate that the various rules of the system had no necessary inter-relation except their derivation from the same source. An arbitrary system, in that sense, is one that can only be described by enumerating every single rule - you cannot simply derive the rules from the fundamental axiom.
On the other hand, if I decide to adopt a religion, my opening proposition is simply to adopt that religion. So, if someone takes the Sermon on the Mount and asks why the meek should inherit the Earth, I just say ‘because it’s in the book’ and there’s no need on me to produce any further argument that relates this as logically following from, say, the Crucifixion.
However, I thought that I was making some kind of sense to point out that a religion would not be as utterly arbitrary as that. Clearly a religion might have all kinds of rules and rituals that have lost their original significance, but they’d probably fall by the wayside in any event. What you are left with, then, is effectively the results of a sort of inter-generational phone-in poll for what parts of the faith work for people – not logically consistent, but probably making some kind of overall intuitive sense.
That would seem to suggest that the main difference between a rational system of morality and religion is that the rational system uses intuition to choose an axiom, and then uses that as the basis of all judgements, whereas religion continues to use intuition to choose other principles. Hence, the main difference is we’d expect that the rational system is more logical consistent. This seems to assume that logical consistency with an arbitrary axiom is better than a set of arbitrary intuitive rules that are not necessarily consistent, which may be the case. And, in any event, why should one axiom cover anything? What if we desire two or three?
Also, we have to find a reason for saying logical consistency with an arbitrary axiom is worth the effort – maybe it’s just another elaborate delusion, giving a spurious veneer of rationality to our rejection of Fred Phelps.0 -
Presumably winning the Nobel Prize for Physics fails to qualify one as a great physicist in your book?
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1997/phillips-autobio.html
The relevant section reads:
Oh, BTW, the Ed Williams he mentions is Edwin R. Williams, research physicist in the Fundamental Quantum Metrology Division of the NIST Electrical and Electronic Engineering Laboratory in Maryland.
There's always one isn't there!:)
I know I used some generalisations there PDN, fair enough, but I think even you can concede the overall point is true. Of course some genuinely are believers but from what I've been studying and reading most of our great modern thinkers are at least agnostic. Some of them talk of a god figure, like Hawking did at the end of a brief history of time but in no way is he a bleiver in say, a specific sky god, he has made that clear in other contexts. The same applies to Einstein who reputedley disputed any religous affiliation. Conversely, a lot of them are also not atheists, unsatisfied with being pinned down with certainity either way. I find that interseting becasue it shows their urge for progress.
Religon on the other hand has always struck me as something stagnant, unwilling to change.0 -
Yes - through natural causes
I'm not sure you're right there. Specific instances of religious belief certainly are stagnant to the point of putrefaction and there's a certain wonder to be had from the sheer, massive and ponderous pointlessness of some of the recent arguments over doctrine and dogma in the christianity forum. Some posters (perhaps even most; who knows?) think that a lack of interest and willingness to change is actually a good thing.stevejazzx wrote:Religon on the other hand has always struck me as something stagnant, unwilling to change.
But religion -- in the more general sense of something that exists mostly to satisfy its own lust for mindspace -- is evolving amazingly fast. Look, for example, at how religion has managed to assume a remarkable degree of control of the US political system (itself a pretty flexible beast) in under thirty years, with just the right kind of prodding from very few people indeed.0 -
I'm not sure you're right there. Specific instances of religious belief certainly are stagnant to the point of putrefaction and there's a certain wonder to be had from the sheer, massive and ponderous pointlessness of some of the recent arguments over doctrine and dogma in the christianity forum. Some posters (perhaps even most; who knows?) think that a lack of interest and willingness to change is actually a good thing.
But religion -- in the more general sense of something that exists mostly to satisfy its own lust for mindspace -- is evolving amazingly fast. Look, for example, at how religion has managed to assume a remarkable degree of control of the US political system (itself a pretty flexible beast) in under thirty years, with just the right kind of prodding from very few people indeed.
What I mean is 'in it's overall dogma'. I understand it's ability to adapt into different topical contexts and somehow relate them to religous intrests but in relation to it's explanations of life (for example the former Popes famous warning to phyicists and scinetists alike not to explore the origins of time) I find it has a stagnant almost dead in the water approach. Of course mainstream religons have needed to concede on certain topics over the centuries but in reality they have surrendered very few positions of church dogma. I was at funeral today and to see people splashing water on themselves and signing '
praise him, praise him for he is lord'
and repeating phrases like -
'all I need to do is believe and I will be saved'
and -
'he is in the clouds now, the angels are flying him to heaven'
this is all I need to know about religon and how it really hasn't changed, perhaps organisations have come up with modern methods of avoiding tax and soliciting polictical will but that doesn't mean they're ready to modernise their beliefs and that is what I am talking about.0 -
Advertisement
-
Yes - through proactive secularism
And as long as they keep offering this promise their pews will never be empty.stevejazzx wrote: »'he is in the clouds now, the angels are flying him to heaven'0
Advertisement