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
-
Yes - through proactive secularismI 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?
Exactly.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'.
Presuming you can show how that derives, yes.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.
Again, exactly so.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's because nearly every long-lasting inspired system of morality is also a customary one. That's why I decided to avoid the term 'religious system of morality'. Hinduism, for example, is almost entirely customary. Catholicism is really quite largely customary, but Protestant morality is largely an inspired system at this stage.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?
Nothing wrong with multiple axioms, as long as they're not contradictory.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.
This takes us back again to the question of whether to have a moral system in the first place. Assuming you decide that you do, a system that offers logical consistency with an arbitrary axiom (or axioms) has the following advantages:
1. you cannot arbitrarily act in your self-interest under the guise of morality. If you choose an entirely arbitrary and personal moral system - that is, doing what feels right to you in a given situation - it is always possible, even probable, that your decisions are influenced, or even governed, by self-interest. If that is the case, you are not acting morally at all - you remain devoid of morality.
2. the system is explicit, and explicable. Assuming your brain is up to it when needed, you can work out the answer to a moral question explicitly from your axioms. Since the answer is explicit, you can explain it to others.
3. you cannot pick and choose the rules. This is similar to point 1. If you don't like the rules that result from logical extension of your axiom(s), you need to change your axioms. You cannot simply say, "oh well, I don't like that rule".
4. the system is falsifiable in the scientific sense. If a properly logical extension of your axioms leads to clearly undesirable outcomes, then clearly your axioms are undesirable. You can therefore test the desirability of your moral axioms through application.
5. consistency lends itself authority. Self-explanatory, I think.
6. consistency enables others to rely on you. A useful social advantage. If I know you are moral, and logically moral, I know when I can trust you.
Those seem to me to be worthwhile advantages.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Yes - through proactive secularism
Indeed, there is a value there - however there would seem to be a potential conflict between 3. and 4., plus it would seem that the term 'clearly undesirable outcomes' suggests that there is some external yardstick to be satisfied (or that can be used as a measure). Surely that yardstick is what morality is, rather than whatever approximation we might be able to work out starting from an arbitrary point?Those seem to me to be worthwhile advantages.
I'm also not sure that consistency is necessarily an unquestionable value. Consider how people react to someone who insists on the rules being fulfilled, when a kind heart might let something go. That might be an example of compassion, rather than morality, but I still have a niggling feeling that consistency could become something that creates the appearance of morality rather than the substance - particularly as it all depends on how well the opening propositions have been chosen.
I suppose an alternative might be the ideas you see in some Eastern philosophies which, while suggesting certain practices are useful in cultivating decent living, see 'enlightenment' as something that is ultimate beyond logic - something that, almost by definition, is hard to set down in language - but I suppose is an idea where 'enlightened' but inexplicable intuition is seen as more reliable than objective reason.0 -
And as long as they keep offering this promise their pews will never be empty.
Yep.
You know I found the cermony very nice as I often do with these things, there was some reading, some beautiful sigining etc...but I just wondered why we couldn't have all that without the other part. Wouldn't it be great to see a mature civilisation wihtout religon behaving nicely and just getting on with life. Religon really pulls us back into the stone age.0 -
Yes - through proactive secularismIndeed, there is a value there - however there would seem to be a potential conflict between 3. and 4.,
Complementary, or related, I would say, rather than contradictory.plus it would seem that the term 'clearly undesirable outcomes' suggests that there is some external yardstick to be satisfied (or that can be used as a measure). Surely that yardstick is what morality is, rather than whatever approximation we might be able to work out starting from an arbitrary point?
No - morality is a system of rules. The rules, however, are not the wellspring or root of morality - that is compassion in the liberal interpretation, or self-interest in the conservative view. Of the two, research favours the liberal interpretation, where our moral decisions are generally founded on empathy rather than self-interest.I'm also not sure that consistency is necessarily an unquestionable value. Consider how people react to someone who insists on the rules being fulfilled, when a kind heart might let something go. That might be an example of compassion, rather than morality, but I still have a niggling feeling that consistency could become something that creates the appearance of morality rather than the substance - particularly as it all depends on how well the opening propositions have been chosen.
Again, no. Whether one chooses to apply moral rules with compassion and flexibility is not a question of which rules one is applying (except insofar as compassion is a moral virtue), and is entirely unrelated to whether those rules are consistent. One can, as we are all aware, apply the arbitrary rules of an inspired moral system with a complete and utter lack of compassion.I suppose an alternative might be the ideas you see in some Eastern philosophies which, while suggesting certain practices are useful in cultivating decent living, see 'enlightenment' as something that is ultimate beyond logic - something that, almost by definition, is hard to set down in language - but I suppose is an idea where 'enlightened' but inexplicable intuition is seen as more reliable than objective reason.
Compassion is enlightenment. Enlightenment is perfected compassion.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
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.
What do you mean by "right".
You say we have no way of being certain if the course of action is right. "Right" by who's standards? God's?
Right and wrong are opinions, they are concepts of humanity. There is no universal scale hidden away some where in the center of the Earth that we can compare our actions to.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.
You still are not getting the point.
Why do you think that following a rational path should lead to good, moral, things? I see no reason why it automatically would.
There is a rational way to build a gun, to build a bullet, to drive to school and to kill every child in the school. Just because something is rational does not mean it is going to end up being a moral or immoral out coming.
The point of rationality isn't to produce morality. Rationality and morality are two completely separate things.
The point is that other people can understand (and therefore debate and argue) the logic of your morality, the logic of your moral decisions. They don't have to agree. But they should understand.0 -
Advertisement
-
Yes - through natural causes
I think i should have been more specific.stevejazzx wrote: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. [...] 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.
I think you can split religious beliefs down into two broad categories. There are the old faithfuls like the promise that you'll stay alive after you die, that there's a powerful sky-deity who loves you, that you should trust the religion and its spokesmen, the existence of spirit-forces and so on. I think these either speak to very basic, cross-cultural human needs and to a greater or lesser extent, are present in most modern religions. Older, animist religions are different and I'll avoid these for the time being!
Then there's the specific nuts and bolts stuff which varies from religion to religion, and instance to instance of specific religions. That includes information like the personality
of the deity, the rituals, the holy books, the clothes, the days you've to visit your religious outlet, the tax concessions and so on.
I suppose you could call it religious form and religious content. The former's pretty standard, while the latter varies pretty much at random.0 -
Yes - through proactive secularism
I think there’s a potential contradiction in saying, on the one hand, that we cannot pick and choose the rules and, on the other hand, that the rules change when they produce a result that we can’t live with. In practical terms, I don’t see how that differs from saying that we ignore the rules when it doesn’t suit us.Complementary, or related, I would say, rather than contradictory.
I’d be interested in knowing what research you’re referring to here. My initial reaction would be to wonder if empathy doesn’t remove (or at least significantly reduce) the role of rationality from the picture as we’ll simply let our intuition guide us even if it seems to bring us to a position that seems inconsistent. (For the sake of argument, that moment in the Star Trek movies where Kirk reverses Spock’s logical ‘needs of the many’ sacrifice by saying ‘The needs of the one outweighed the needs of the many’ to justify the ethic that no-one gets left behind.)Of the two, research favours the liberal interpretation, where our moral decisions are generally founded on empathy rather than self-interest.
Just to clarify, I do indeed feel that morality is most likely simply a human invention. In the current frame, I suppose the idea that’s mostly in my mind is simply whether reason can add/subtract anything to that invention or whether it just gives a spurious veneer of science to something arbitrary.Right and wrong are opinions, they are concepts of humanity. There is no universal scale hidden away some where in the center of the Earth that we can compare our actions to.
Like you, I don’t see any reason why reason should lead to a better outcome. That’s actually what I was trying to get at in the section you quote. I don’t think anyone here is suggesting that reason leads to morality – but Scofflaw is putting forward the idea that reason might contain some positive features that make it preferable to ‘unreason’. I know that the discussion, to take place at all, requires us to be willing to accept pragmatic meanings for words like ‘better’ and ‘positive’, while at the same time acknowledging that use of these terms suggests we do have some unspecified measure in mind.Why do you think that following a rational path should lead to good, moral, things? I see no reason why it automatically would.
Except that, again, seems to suggest that logical moral decisions have a quality that puts them ahead of illogical moral decisions. ‘Hell of a guy, that Spock, but its just too risky to go back and get him. That’s how he’d want it, too. He always preferred logic to intuitive ethics’.The point is that other people can understand (and therefore debate and argue) the logic of your morality, the logic of your moral decisions. They don't have to agree. But they should understand.0 -
but Scofflaw is putting forward the idea that reason might contain some positive features that make it preferable to ‘unreason’.
It does, it contains the "feature" of being understandable.
If a religious person says "homosexual acts are immoral" my first question is "why". The answer is of course "Because God says so"
Now, from a ethical point of view I can't work with that. I can't argue or debate that, I can't get at the heart of that, I can't expand on that, I can't do anything with that.
That is either someone a person accepts or doesn't accept. From the point of view of organising the morality of society, debating the morality of society, it is useless.0 -
Yes - through proactive secularismI think there’s a potential contradiction in saying, on the one hand, that we cannot pick and choose the rules and, on the other hand, that the rules change when they produce a result that we can’t live with. In practical terms, I don’t see how that differs from saying that we ignore the rules when it doesn’t suit us.
Hmm. It differs in the sense that in a rational system of ethics/morality you can only abandon the whole system or keep the whole system. If the logical outcome of your founding axiom leads you to conclusions you find repugnant, then your founding axiom needs re-examination (yes, I'm skating over a big question here). Same thing if you find the conclusions contradictory.I’d be interested in knowing what research you’re referring to here. My initial reaction would be to wonder if empathy doesn’t remove (or at least significantly reduce) the role of rationality from the picture as we’ll simply let our intuition guide us even if it seems to bring us to a position that seems inconsistent. (For the sake of argument, that moment in the Star Trek movies where Kirk reverses Spock’s logical ‘needs of the many’ sacrifice by saying ‘The needs of the one outweighed the needs of the many’ to justify the ethic that no-one gets left behind.)
I suspect that empathy, and our built-in morality, certainly outweighs and preempts any 'rational' system of morality we can build, and certainly it outweighs things like rational self-interest, as games theory research tends to show. People are not, by and large, rational actors.
However, you have to bear in mind that I am not suggesting a rational system of morality as the bulk of the morality of a human being. I think, as I have said before, that morality is hard-wired in us. It is that hard-wired morality that answers basic daily questions like "shall I mug that guy" or "should I drag that girl into an alley..." - and it is also that hard-wired morality that allows us to test rational systems.
A rational system of morality (and any system of morality) is useful for determining the right thing to do in situations where hard-wired morality is not up to the job. Take Milgram's famous experiment, for example. We have an inbuilt acceptance of authority, which can be used to make us do what is immoral - things that we feel are wrong with our hard-wired morality. Living by the tenets of an explicit moral system allows one to reject the authority of the experimenter, as some people did.
Similarly, your internal 'moral sense' can be dulled by repetition, or eroded by gradual degrees - and again, an explicit moral system allows one to retain one's morality in such situations.Just to clarify, I do indeed feel that morality is most likely simply a human invention.
Just to clarify, I don't agree. I think morality itself is innate, but systems of morality are a human invention.In the current frame, I suppose the idea that’s mostly in my mind is simply whether reason can add/subtract anything to that invention or whether it just gives a spurious veneer of science to something arbitrary. Like you, I don’t see any reason why reason should lead to a better outcome. That’s actually what I was trying to get at in the section you quote. I don’t think anyone here is suggesting that reason leads to morality – but Scofflaw is putting forward the idea that reason might contain some positive features that make it preferable to ‘unreason’. I know that the discussion, to take place at all, requires us to be willing to accept pragmatic meanings for words like ‘better’ and ‘positive’, while at the same time acknowledging that use of these terms suggests we do have some unspecified measure in mind.
Except that, again, seems to suggest that logical moral decisions have a quality that puts them ahead of illogical moral decisions. ‘Hell of a guy, that Spock, but its just too risky to go back and get him. That’s how he’d want it, too. He always preferred logic to intuitive ethics’.
The advantage of logical moral systems is that they don't leave you at risk of simply making bad decisions in new situations, as outlined above. Someone using 'intuitive ethics' in Milgram's experiment will find their innate 'moral sense' in conflict with their equally innate desire to bow to authority, resulting in a conflict that famously resolves in favour of authority most of the time.
Imagine that a regime comes to power here that decides to do away with religion (on topic!). Initially passes laws outlawing cults like Scientology. Then it removes the schools from the churches. It then outlaws certain religious practices such as circumcision, bans street preaching. And so on by gradual degrees. Now many of these things would be quite pleasing to atheists, and if one doesn't have a moral system, the combination of that pleasure with the innate acceptance of authority is likely to overcome any feeling of discomfort - and one can rationalise that discomfort away. If one has a system of morality that considers such laws immoral (as I do), one has a whole lot more rationalising to do, because the immorality of the situation is explicit.
While not everyone who has such a system of morality will necessarily actively resist the new laws, those who have no such system are far more likely to rationalise themselves into a position of support.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Yes - through proactive secularism
But, in fairness, you’re wrong. A person who states they believe their morality comes from God is perfectly understandable. We simply don’t agree with them that God has provided us with a morality – a debate that goes on and on and on.It does, it contains the "feature" of being understandable.
If a religious person says "homosexual acts are immoral" my first question is "why". The answer is of course "Because God says so"
Now, from a ethical point of view I can't work with that. I can't argue or debate that, I can't get at the heart of that, I can't expand on that, I can't do anything with that.
That is either someone a person accepts or doesn't accept. From the point of view of organising the morality of society, debating the morality of society, it is useless.
Similarly, someone may adopt the arbitrary axiom that anything that happens between consenting adults is moral. So, for the sake of argument, if a person consented to be eaten by another person, and there was no question of insanity or compulsion, that act of cannibalism would be perfectly moral by that standard. Many might or might not accept that voluntary cannibalism is or isn’t moral. But the axiom we’ve started with is as arbitrary as choosing this religion or that, so there’s actually as little (or as much) to talk about as whether God gave us a book.0 -
Advertisement
-
Yes - through proactive secularism
Except presumably refinement, short of abandonment, is possible. I might start with the axiom that any act between fully consenting adults is moral, and then add an arbitrary rider ‘except for cannibalism’ if I found that implication bothered me.Hmm. It differs in the sense that in a rational system of ethics/morality you can only abandon the whole system or keep the whole system.
Indeed – it’s that elusive ‘repugnancy’ that is of interest. And, I stress again, I’m totally Mr Cop-Out at present, as I’m not suggesting any concrete way of defining what is repugnant.If the logical outcome of your founding axiom leads you to conclusions you find repugnant, then your founding axiom needs re-examination (yes, I'm skating over a big question here).
I don’t mind that situation so much as it suggests to me simply that a technical flaw might have been made in selecting the axioms. I don’t think that undermines the principle that a logically consistent system might be a good thing.Same thing if you find the conclusions contradictory.
But are we confident that explicit morality is what made people reject authority? It would seem to me that an explicit moral system might equally say ‘for the general good of society, we must follow authority even when we find it personally difficult to do so’. I’ve come across references to that experiment before, but I cannot claim to know the definitive conclusions – I’ve simply seen it as illustrating that many people seem willing to inflict pain when ordered by an authority figure. It would strike me (perhaps in happy ignorance) that someone refusing to obey instructions is evidence of people trusting their intuition above formal, explicit systems.Living by the tenets of an explicit moral system allows one to reject the authority of the experimenter, as some people did.0 -
Yes - through proactive secularismExcept presumably refinement, short of abandonment, is possible. I might start with the axiom that any act between fully consenting adults is moral, and then add an arbitrary rider ‘except for cannibalism’ if I found that implication bothered me. Indeed – it’s that elusive ‘repugnancy’ that is of interest. And, I stress again, I’m totally Mr Cop-Out at present, as I’m not suggesting any concrete way of defining what is repugnant.I don’t mind that situation so much as it suggests to me simply that a technical flaw might have been made in selecting the axioms. I don’t think that undermines the principle that a logically consistent system might be a good thing. But are we confident that explicit morality is what made people reject authority? It would seem to me that an explicit moral system might equally say ‘for the general good of society, we must follow authority even when we find it personally difficult to do so’.
Indeed it might - and someone with such a system of morality (there are plenty of them) would not find the actions of a dictator immoral. Fortunately, it is not usually long before the results of such a system comes into conflict with inbuilt morality.I’ve come across references to that experiment before, but I cannot claim to know the definitive conclusions – I’ve simply seen it as illustrating that many people seem willing to inflict pain when ordered by an authority figure. It would strike me (perhaps in happy ignorance) that someone refusing to obey instructions is evidence of people trusting their intuition above formal, explicit systems.
Someone who is willing to fully trust their intuition could walk out of the Milgram experiment. Under our dictatorship, however, they would need a very high degree of personal authority to make that into a movement - less authority is required where the system of morality is rational, and follows from generally accepted axioms.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Yes - through proactive secularism
But is 'inbuilt morality' effectively the same as 'empathy' which is effectively the the same as 'intuition'? What's on my mind is that people (I don't think) expect intuition to be necessarily consistent, which seems to mean the ultimate measure is just personal intuition. I'm not suggesting this is a suprise to us, just that it does make me think the issue is less about reason and more about what axioms 'feel right'.Fortunately, it is not usually long before the results of such a system comes into conflict with inbuilt morality.
I'm not sure if I either agree or disagree with whether reason makes any approach to morality stronger in the face of a dictatorship. However, the main bother that stays in my mind is that question of the axioms and how they are chosen. That seems to me more important than what might be derived from those axioms.less authority is required where the system of morality is rational, and follows from generally accepted axioms.0 -
Yes - through proactive secularismBut is 'inbuilt morality' effectively the same as 'empathy' which is effectively the the same as 'intuition'?
Hmm...no, and yes. 'Inbuilt morality' is not the same as 'empathy', I think, or at least not the same as the measurable activity of mirror neurons. 'Empathy' primarily defines what you think of as a 'person' - someone to whom morality applies. However, I reflexively consider an ant a 'person', and worthy of rights, and I think that is probably not based on empathy in any meaningful sense.
'Inbuilt morality' being the same as 'intuition', though, sure, since intuition is the name we give to the biddings of our inbuilt systems.What's on my mind is that people (I don't think) expect intuition to be necessarily consistent, which seems to mean the ultimate measure is just personal intuition.
That doesn't follow at all - not even a bit, unless you have left out some compelling argument why mere inconsistency provides an ultimate measure.I'm not suggesting this is a suprise to us, just that it does make me think the issue is less about reason and more about what axioms 'feel right'. I'm not sure if I either agree or disagree with whether reason makes any approach to morality stronger in the face of a dictatorship. However, the main bother that stays in my mind is that question of the axioms and how they are chosen. That seems to me more important than what might be derived from those axioms.
Well, here we're back to testing our axioms and their outcomes against our inbuilt moral sense. It is not surprising that the choice of axiom can and does vary. The biggest division is one you alluded to earlier - between those who believe that the community/group is more important than the individual, and those who believe the opposite - the conservative and liberal positions (except in the US, because they're weird). I've mentioned this online book before, I think - it's worth a read.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Yes - through proactive secularism
That’s fine – and I think enough for the point I’m trying to get to.Scofflaw wrote:'Inbuilt morality' being the same as 'intuition', though, sure, since intuition is the name we give to the biddings of our inbuilt systems.
I might not be putting well (alternatively, I’ve put it all too well and it simply doesn’t pass scrutiny). I’ll give it another go.Scofflaw wrote:That doesn't follow at all - not even a bit, unless you have left out some compelling argument why mere inconsistency provides an ultimate measure.
I suppose what I mean is that the ultimate test (from what has been said so far) is does a moral statement accord with intuition. A conclusion that follows logically from an axiom will be rejected (possibly along with the axiom) if intuition is disturbed. Hence, effectively, intuition is the measure.
I don’t think we expect intuition to be logical. Intuitively, Kirk’s statement to Spock about the needs of the one outweighing the needs of the many makes a degree of sense. But it is illogical if we simultaneously state that all lives are of equal value – which is also intuitively clear.
That’s what I’m trying to get at. I’m not saying that the fact of inconsistency is what makes intuition the measure. We are both (so far as I can see) trusting to intuition as we recognise no other way of choosing between arbitrary principles. I’m simply suggesting that intuition will not necessarily be logical or consistent. I’ve even a vague memory of either Sam Harris or Daniel Dennett suggesting that its simply not possible for a human mind to hold a full collection utterly consistent opinions at any given moment in time.
Indeed, and I’d expect intuition (without any basis whatsoever other than more ‘intuition’) to be ultimately based on whatever influences a person has tripped over in the course of a life. By the same token, I’d expect religion to reflect whatever influences it has collectively tripped over in the course of its history.Scofflaw wrote:It is not surprising that the choice of axiom can and does vary.
Just a speculative thought – is the effective choice between inherited and evolving collective ‘intuition’ in the shape of religions or cultural practices and individual intuition, which will be influenced by that religion/culture?0 -
But, in fairness, you’re wrong. A person who states they believe their morality comes from God is perfectly understandable. We simply don’t agree with them that God has provided us with a morality – a debate that goes on and on and on.
The statement "God says so" is perfectly understandable, but what is the reason God says so? That is the bit that is not understandable.
I've had many discussions about homosexuals and marriage with theists that hit a brick wall when I say something like "ok, so why does God not want homosexuals to marry"
The answer is nearly always "I don't know, but I'm sure he has his reasons"
Put simply that is useless for debating ethical issues. That isn't going to convince anyone that the position that homosexuals shouldn't marry is good. Why is God automatically right?But the axiom we’ve started with is as arbitrary as choosing this religion or that, so there’s actually as little (or as much) to talk about as whether God gave us a book.
Exactly. Which is why picking arbitrary axioms is as useless. In fact "God is already right" is an arbitrary axiom.0 -
Yes - through proactive secularism
But bear in mind that the conclusion we seem to be approaching is that the ultimate test is just our own intuition. Why should that be automatically right?Why is God automatically right?
Ultimately, its just one arbitrary choice versus another. Why, in that situation, would someone decide to stick with religion? Because they can pragmatically claim that it worked reasonably well for previous generations. And it gives you something to sing about.0 -
But it doesn't work reasonable well. That is the point.Ultimately, its just one arbitrary choice versus another. Why, in that situation, would someone decide to stick with religion? Because they can pragmatically claim that it worked reasonably well for previous generations.
Ultimately religion is one group of people proclaiming that they are universally right because they claim authority from a deity, a deity that they proclaim as being the universal source of right or wrong.
It shifts the responsibility of justification away from the people actually carrying out the consequences of ethical decisions. That is not good. A religious person doesn't feel the need to justify why homosexuals shouldn't marry, it is simply because "God says so"0 -
Yes - through proactive secularism
I’m not sure that we’ve established that it does more harm than systems based on reason.Wicknight wrote:But it doesn't work reasonably well. That is the point.
Just as, ultimately, atheism suggests there is no right or wrong – just personal vagaries.Wicknight wrote:Ultimately religion is one group of people proclaiming that they are universally right because they claim authority from a deity, a deity that they proclaim as being the universal source of right or wrong.
I have a lot of sympathy for the ‘alienation’ concept in relation to religion – i.e. that we effectively project our own opinions onto the God figure. That does seem like unnecessary folderol, yet if people do it must be for a reason. Also, tbh, people are not utterly absolved of responsibility in this context. Religion changes as society changes. (Going a bit off point, I suggest this means that if we see people seeming to adopt more extreme versions of religions, it’s as much a response to the world around them as something that religion is doing.)Wicknight wrote:It shifts the responsibility of justification away from the people actually carrying out the consequences of ethical decisions. That is not good.
Indeed, but on our side our answer is ultimately ‘I say so’.Wicknight wrote:A religious person doesn't feel the need to justify why homosexuals shouldn't marry, it is simply because "God says so"
Ironically, there's nothing more than our intuitive feeling that 'it must be so' to suggest reason leads to a better outcome (I'm even wincing a little at what 'better' is suppose to mean in this context).0 -
I’m not sure that we’ve established that it does more harm than systems based on reason.
I'm not judging it based on how much harm it does (a rather difficult variable to measure). I am judging it based on how easy it is to communicate and understand logical ideas behind moral and ethical issues.Just as, ultimately, atheism suggests there is no right or wrong – just personal vagaries.
I'm not sure what you mean. Its like saying there is no "12", its just a mathematical concept created by humans in order to perform mathematical operations. The "just" implies that it should be realer than this and that this is some how a failing. In fact all the number "12" ever was or needed to be was a mathematical concept.
The same with ethical ideas such as "right" or "wrong". They are human concepts used to measure, subjectively, moral decisions. But that is all they ever were or need to be.
Some people seem to have great problem with this idea, and prefer to invent the idea of a higher authority that they substitute for their own authority to make it appear as if their moral decisions are some how more valid than anyone else.
See above. They do it because they lack the confidence in their own ability to rationally reason ethical issues. You often find it when a person is searching for a justification to feel a certain way about something that might not be the most rational.I have a lot of sympathy for the ‘alienation’ concept in relation to religion – i.e. that we effectively project our own opinions onto the God figure. That does seem like unnecessary folderol, yet if people do it must be for a reason.
For example, you get a lot of theists who are uncomfortable with the idea of homosexual activity spouting Biblical verses condemning it at the first sign a gay man. They do this because the idea of gay people makes them uncomfortable but they can't find a rational reason for this so they run to a higher authority to confirm.
A non-religious example, often people who have just been dumped by someone will look to their friends for a justification to be mad at the person, even if they dumped them in as nice a way as possible. They will want their friends to say he/she was a bastard for doing what they did, because they want some justification for feeling angry at the person.0 -
Advertisement
-
Yes - through proactive secularism
It doesn’t strike me that ease of communication/understanding is particularly an issue. Fundamentalist religion would strike me as being very easy both to communicate and understand.Wicknight wrote:I'm not judging it based on how much harm it does (a rather difficult variable to measure). I am judging it based on how easy it is to communicate and understand logical ideas behind moral and ethical issues.
I know we could get lost in space on this one, but I feel that there is a considerable difference between a concept like ‘12’ and a concept like ‘moral’. ‘Morality’ is like ‘God’. It’s a human concept, but it may not actually exist. Ultimately someone can prove the concept of ‘12’ by throwing a dozen rocks at you. (Of course, some think that throwing rocks at people is also a good way of proving both God and morality exist.) But morality, like God, may simply be human imagination – or ultimately just a cloak for human self-interest.Wicknight wrote:In fact all the number "12" ever was or needed to be was a mathematical concept.
The same with ethical ideas such as "right" or "wrong". They are human concepts used to measure, subjectively, moral decisions. But that is all they ever were or need to be.
Maybe, as Beckett would say, there’s nothing to be done. I just query if we’re adding anything to the situation if we replace the illusion of God with the illusion of morality. If what we mean is either self interest or personal vagary, lets say that.
If we take the word ‘moral’ out of that statement, and simply say ‘make it appear as if their decisions are some how more valid than anyone else’ is anything lost? (In case I seem to be fence sitting, my feeling is probably nothing is lost).Wicknight wrote:Some people seem to have great problem with this idea, and prefer to invent the idea of a higher authority that they substitute for their own authority to make it appear as if their moral decisions are some how more valid than anyone else.
Indeed we do, and theists may even explain seemingly meaningless prohibitions as God giving us the opportunity to display faith. However, in fairness, you do also see theists both giving reasons for why something might be prohibited (say, defending prohibition on divorce as a protection of social stability) and even rejecting received doctrine where they feel it is rubbish – as some will do in relation to homosexuality.Wicknight wrote:For example, you get a lot of theists who are uncomfortable with the idea of homosexual activity spouting Biblical verses condemning it at the first sign a gay man. They do this because the idea of gay people makes them uncomfortable but they can't find a rational reason for this so they run to a higher authority to confirm.0 -
Yes - through proactive secularismId like to see an end to the religious machine: hieracical organisations, indoctrination etc.
But I see nothing wrong with belief in something, and think it sad to see some atheists trying to constantly persuade people to abondon their faith. Not everything has been explained by science, its only a belief of yours that it all will one day 0 -
Yes - through natural causes
Only religious people (a) claim that science claims to explain everything and (b) think that their religion answers *everything* instead. Very tiresome!KR wrote:Not everything has been explained by science,0 -
Yes - through proactive secularism
Only religious people (a) claim that science claims to explain everything and (b) think that their religion answers *everything* instead. Very tiresome!KR wrote:Not everything has been explained by science,
Also indicative of a deep misunderstanding of the nature of science. If science already explained everything, there would be no further need for science, or scientists.
cordially,
Sofflaw0
Advertisement