brighid

Epitome,

If you have the time please check some of the detailed arguments J. Lowder presents in regard to this discussion:

<a href="http://www.infidels.org/~jlowder/atheism/overview.html" target="_blank">http://www.infidels.org/~jlowder/atheism/overview.html</a>

Here's an extensive look at the British Secular Movement:

<a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/john_mcgee/british_secular_movement.html" target="_blank">http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/john_mcgee/british_secular_movement.html</a>

Brighid

[ November 25, 2002: Message edited by: brighid ]</p>

Epitome

brighid:Well then Epitome, according to your theory (if I understand it correctly) the more religious a society is the more moral it should be?

Correct?

It's not my personal theory, it's based on the studies I provided earlier.

And again, if there were no such things done in the name of racism, patriotism or for other idealogies... etc. you would have your point.

BTW, Does this mean you're not up for discussing the last question I posed in my last post?

As for the first link you provided... if there is something specific and to the point of what we are discussing, I'll take a look at it...

I'll go ahead and look through the second since I haven't seen that before....

Epitome

[ November 25, 2002: Message edited by: Epitome ]</p>

Epitome

brighid:What historical examples are you aware of regarding Christian/Catholic theocracies and the status of human rights within that society?

I'll have to look it up... There are things that come to mind that were improved, but I know better than to think anyone here will take my word for it. *L*

What human rights improvements have been made in atheist or religion supressed countries?

What is more favorable: a nation run by a singular figure head, appointed by God or a nation run democratically?

Democracy, of course. There's much less chance for corruption when there is accountability to the morals of the masses than rely on just one individual to remain moral... The Bible is pretty clear that even those elected by God didn't always follow him and led the people astray...

It should be noted that God didn't set up theocracies. Even ancient Israel only got a king appointed by God because they wanted it themselves...

BTW, aren't most Democracies mostly made of Christians?

Does Christianity favor a communist, socialist, facist, or capitalistic economic system? Please provide examples.

Jesus talked more about individual fiscal responsibility and didn't focus on systems. He did say that we should pay to Ceaser what is Ceaser and to God what is God's. The early church shared their possessions but it's never mandated as something a government should force on people, but rather that people should help each other out more of their own will.

What is a secular humanist economic system?

Not sure how these answers effect the discussion though... They seem to be mildly related to it, but not close enough to provide proof either way.

Epitome

[ November 25, 2002: Message edited by: Epitome ]</p>

Vorkosigan

It's not my personal theory, it's based on the studies I provided earlier.

Epitome, get up to date. I've already shown that the studies are either unfounded (Gartner), not on point (Kark), or worthless because the primary researchers are fundie nuts (Gartner, Larson). You have yet to show why this analysis is incorrect.

emur

I think it depends largely on how they were raised as children.

If they were raised with the primary emphasis on submitting to the authority of their parent/parents, then they will tend to find moral authority in sources outside of themselves when they become adults. These people may be incapable of being moral without this outside influence, unless of course they can be shown a better way.

However, if the primary emphasis is to teach them to carefully consider all of their actions, learn the consequences of their actions, and take responsibility for their actions, then their own conscience as the moral authority will serve them (and those around them) well.

A big problem I have with the moral authority residing outside the individual is the power it puts in the hands of a few (in the name of God) to dictate morality to others. There is a lot of God-playing with this one, especially with religious leaders.

The result? Immorality of a kind that religious leaders don't like to talk about much. Stuff like controlling others, manipulation, guilt-tripping, fear mongering, pride, intolerance...

Mel

Epitome

emur:I think it depends largely on how they were raised as children.

Good point...

If they were raised with the primary emphasis on submitting to the authority of their parent/parents, then they will tend to find moral authority in sources outside of themselves when they become adults. These people may be incapable of being moral without this outside influence, unless of course they can be shown a better way.

Many children who are told ONLY to submit and obey do just the opposite and strongly rebel.

But I know you are talking generalities... and I can get your point here.

However, if the primary emphasis is to teach them to carefully consider all of their actions, learn the consequences of their actions, and take responsibility for their actions, then their own conscience as the moral authority will serve them (and those around them) well.

I find this fascinating because as I raise my sons I do a combination... and I imagine that most parents do... because most people do have both a need for external boundaries from peers and authority figures as well as an inner conscience that keeps them in check.

In the second example, are you speaking of teaching a child that outside authority doesn't matter, or doesn't matter as much? Can you clarify? Maybe give an example?

It would seem that some sort of respect for authority is warranted simply as a matter of civic responsibility to the law of the land. Unless you're suggesting that if everyone was taught in the way you describe there would be no need for law... though I doubt that's what you mean... again, just trying to clarify.

A big problem I have with the moral authority residing outside the individual is the power it puts in the hands of a few (in the name of God) to dictate morality to others. There is a lot of God-playing with this one, especially with religious leaders.

I completely agree. There is not just the obvious problem of religious leaders taking advantage and causing havoc... but the less obvious but just as prevalent problem of individuals not taking enough moral responsibility on their own. I've seen many people blaming leaders for not fixing their problems when they themselves should be doing something to fix it.

Leadership is an important function in society and communities of any group. History has shown that people working together can accomplish much more good than individuals working against each other. Strong leadership helps to focus people on a goal of the shared vision...

But there's always the problem of finding a good leader and finding a balance between leadership and individual contribution.

The result? Immorality of a kind that religious leaders don't like to talk about much. Stuff like controlling others, manipulation, guilt-tripping, fear mongering, pride, intolerance...

This happens not just in religion, but in the office place, governments, schools etc. Anywhere there are groups of people there is a potential for corruption in the leadership.

Granted, religions and denominations which do not emphasis personal relationship with their God and personal responsibility for growth to maturity will be most likely to spawn cultic behaviors and blind following of human leadership.

Would a community built on secular humanistic morality be immune to such abuses?

My guess would be that if there was a strong emphasis kept on personal responsibility and development there would be less of a risk... I just don't know how easy it would be to keep that emphasis.


Epitome

Vorkosigan

Granted, religions and denominations which do not emphasis personal relationship with their God and personal responsibility for growth to maturity will be most likely to spawn cultic behaviors and blind following of human leadership.

It's just the opposite in reality. Those religious in which god is abstract or impersonal, such as pantheism or Buddhism, have low body counts and high personal autonomy. Those religions where one cultivates a personal relationship, like modern right-wing Christianity, are the ones with high body counts. It ain't liberal Christians running around blowing up abortion clinics and shooting abortion doctors, or beating up gay guys outside of gay bars, or promoting legislation that curtails the rights of people they disapprove of. It's the "personal relationship with Jesus" types.

Vorkosigan

brighid

Epitome,

It is necessary that you answer each of my questions, and I did specifically ask that you answer as if you were a strict/fundamentalist adherent ... you can do that can't you

I would really appreciate, if you have the time to please answer each question as best you can from a fundamentalist point of view. I will provide the secularist point of view.

If indeed your theory is correct, then naturally the most moral societies will also be the most religiously devout. I think your theory is of course suspect and that is why I gave the secular example of Sweden to contrast and compare in an attempt to come to a valid conclusion based upon actual evidence, not simply appeals to emotion or any other fallacies (on either side of the equation.)

I am truly not attempting to be snide here, but rather to try (with your help presenting the theist position you support) to show that religion is not the best foundation for morality.

It is important for you to answer ALL of the questions because it will illuminate the fact that MOST Western theists who have had the opportunity to be exposed to secular thought modify their religious mandates, or ignore them for morals and laws that are more humane/humanistic - ie secular. I am not attempting, nor have I asserted that religion does not provide any positive foundation for moral development, but rather it is not the end all and be all of moral character development, that it cannot be relied upon in most cases and that secular values have heavily influenced moderate and liberal religious systems. Furthermore that the most devoutly religious systems seem to be the most morally suspect and this cast serious doubt on your assertations.

Are you willing to challenge your thinking and test the waters? I hope you are game.

Brighid

brighid

I will be out for the holiday and unable to return to this discussion until Dec. 2nd.

Brighid

emur

Mel posted:
However, if the primary emphasis is to teach them to carefully consider all of their actions, learn the consequences of their actions, and take responsibility for their actions, then their own conscience as the moral authority will serve them (and those around them) well.

My wife and I raise our daughter in the way I stated above. She is almost 14, is a straight A+ student, and rarely gives us any trouble.

I want her to see me as a loving dad who has experienced life more than she and as a result is a wise guide for her in the things of life. I don't want her to see me as primarily an authority figure who tells her how to think and how to act.

We are not raising her to think that outside authority doesn't matter. I emphasize that what outside authorities tell her should be thought through, and not just accepted without question. I want her to think critically and make decisions carefully.

I want her to respect us not because we are her authorities but because she has learned that our guidance is given out of love and has been beneficial for her.

Yes, we need to follow laws as a matter of civic responsibility. But the reason behind the laws is important too. They exist not because God said so or because some power hungry authoritarian gave them to us. They exist for the benefit of society as a whole in the context of individual freedom.

I agree that leadership is an important function. I'm simply saying that critical thinking skills can help one determine whether to be a leader, and if not, can help one choose to follow a good leader and reject a bad leader.

No, but religious ones aren't either. I don't think that you see the religious morality abuse problem as badly as I see it. I think it is widespread, primarily in fundamental and evangelical communities.

I've ministered in five churches. Each one has had a religious morality abuse problem. This has been either from leaders who tried to make me or others think the way they think, or from congregants who tried to do the same.

Between my own experiences and the experiences of the many others I have had contact with (both clergy and laity) and read about, I actually see the problem as pandemic.

And I believe it is rooted in an uncritical acceptance of what an authority teaches, internalizing it, and then pushing it on others.

If the children being raised today would be taught to think through issues and to carefully critique authorities, I think both the religious and secular world would be better in the coming generations.

As for me, I can only affect my small part of the world by raising my daughter accordingly and by exposing religious authoritarians for who they are - intolerant bigots who try to snuff out all views but their own.

Mel