Freethought & Rationalism Archive

lpetrich · 02-05-2002, 01:25 PM

I also ask what kind of "agnostic" is Guenter Lewy; what are his real metaphysical/theological beliefs?

bluefugue · 02-05-2002, 01:36 PM

Quote:

then IMO the best strategy is to work out what is the least obnoxious "royal lie" to impose upon society.

I vote for Bokononism.

Throbert McGee · 02-05-2002, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by IesusDomini:
I vote for Bokononism.

Since it has been my great fortune to remain part of a duprass with my beloved ex-boyfriend (this term being similar in meaning, I believe, to what Vonnegut called a "Nation of Two" in Mother Night), I'll second that one.

[ February 05, 2002: Message edited by: Throbert McGee ]

Vorkosigan · 02-06-2002, 04:02 AM

How can the Bible be an incomplete moral guide and not point beyond itself.

It's an incomplete moral guide that doesn't point beyond itself. Simple as that. Where in the Bible does it say "Look, it's not all here, think for yourselves."

Secondly, the arguement that there is nothing beyond itself for the Bible to point to isn't proof that it isn't pointing beyond itself.

You're right. Thought I'd toss that in there, though.

People do have to base society on some kind of value system - I'm not arguing with that. I would argue that it must do it on a subjective basis. Religion is largely subjective. It is whether a basis can be found for moral values on the grounds of pure reason or whether instinct (of which religion is a part) has a part to play.

Well, since people and animals have moral behavior, and had it long before they had religion, the answer is obvious that religion is not necessary for moral behavior.

Didn't William Wilberforce play a significant part in that? He was most certainly a theist.

So why is it that so many Christians don't see this as a problem, or at least, not a threat to their theism?

Because people don't give up their identities in the face of empirical failure. Instead, they rewrite doctrine or alter interpretation to account for the changes in the world. When Shabbetai Tzvi, the would-be Jewish messiah of the 17th century, was busted by the Ottomans and forced to convert to Islam to save his life, some of his followers converted as well. They didn't say to themselves: nowhere in the Jewish scriptures is there anything about this, so obviously he can't be the Messiah. They had their new identity, it was bound up with Tzvi, and that was that. It took decades to suppress the movement, even after his natural and inevitable death. I could multiply such examples by the hundreds.

For 1700 years Christians killed each other and others with gleeful abandon. Along came the secularists, and said that was a Bad Thing. So Christianity adjusted and incorporated these doctrines into Christianity in the form of the oxymoron "Christian tolerance," just as they are now in the process of coming to grips with homosexuality. Soon they will be believing it was they who invented tolerance toward gays....

But again you were using terms like 'we' as though your opinions are to be generally considered fact.

I used "we" where it was relevant and correct, for example, in claiming that "we" atheists have a more robust view of morality than that advocated by the original poster. I doubt any atheist posting here would disagree. What do you think?

turton:I did not say it was the natural tendency of people (not "man") to tolerate and respect others. Rather, what I said was that education was the source of that way of thinking.

E_muse: Can education actually give people the power to overcome instincts which are in opposition to such teaching?

Sure. Otherwise, both Christianity and atheism are impossible!

Michael

Kvalhion · 02-06-2002, 06:06 AM

It is so tiring when people attempt to compare religious morality with the reality of society.

Morality found within religion is idealistic and impractical. Just like a politician, these morals give utopian ideas without any substance on how such a thing can possibly exist. I could say "Love everyone, never do anything bad, don't hurt the environment, never argue, never fight, etc" ad nauseum. Does that really say anything at all about how such a thing can possibly be accomplished?

Religious morality seeks to eliminate certain aspects of natural human behavior. Obviously, by examing the past, that has not worked and will never work. It is a part of human nature that people will be jealous, angry, vengeful, dishonest, selfish, prejudicial, as well as honest, kind, generous, truthful, helpful, loving, caring, and a great number of other things. Sure, we would like to emphasize the "good" traits over the "bad" traits, but saying "Don't do bad" is ludicrous and nonsensical.

Because religious morality will always be impractical wishful thinking, religionists will always be able to say "If only people were more religius, everything would be better." Yet no matter how religious people get, the same problems exist, and oftentimes even more pronounced (such as the divorce rates cited in previous replies).

Like it or not, human nature exists everywhere, including within the church. There are child molesters, rapists, thiefs, people who commit fraud, etc within the church just as there are outside of the church. The degree of religion doesn't change this, despite what people would like to believe.

Fortunately society has been more reality focused, providing options and remedies for when humans behave in the way they are going to behave, rather than simply stomping its food and demanding "Don't do it!"

Reality requires real options and real solutions. Religious morality is merely wishful thinking. Yet isn't it fun to say "If only everyone were more religious..."

[ February 06, 2002: Message edited by: Kvalhion ]

99Percent · 02-06-2002, 09:12 AM

Kvalhion: Because religious morality will always be impractical wishful thinking

The keyword is "wishful" of course. All religion is wishful thinking. The religious wish for life after death, for a personal god, for hell for the wrong doers, and heaven for the virtous. This is what makes it impractical. Religious morality is based on punishment done not in this life. Where is the practicallity on punishment that does not affect our current life, where the consequences of our actions cannot be seen beforehand, only imagined?

religionists will always be able to say "If only people were more religius, everything would be better

Yeah, what religionist fail to see is that not all people are imaginative and irrational as they are, so they careless about possible punishment/reward in the imagined afterlife.

America has been more successful precisely because it has placed a system of rewards and punishments in the real secular world, not because of religion.

E_muse · 02-06-2002, 04:13 PM

Quote:

It's an incomplete moral guide that doesn't point beyond itself. Simple as that. Where in the Bible does it say "Look, it's not all here, think for yourselves."

Quote:

"For we know in part and we prophecy in part.
But when that which is perfect has come, then that which is in part will be done away.
When I was a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am fully known."

1 Corinthians 13:9-12

Paul writes this as one who would have had a formidable knowledge of the Old Testament, who was a Christian amongst those who had been directly with Christ and who claimed to have experienced Christ himself. His own writings make up a significant chunk of the New Testament.

Christians should not claim to know it all! They should be content with mysteries.

Quote:

Well, since people and animals have moral behavior, and had it long before they had religion, the answer is obvious that religion is not necessary for moral behavior.

Religion is something which exists in human beings and one of the major factors that differentiates us from animals. As I've said before, observing animals will tell us nothing about why humans need religion. Animals are moral without being rationalists too, so, by the same token, are you arguing that rationalism is unnecessary for morality too?

Also, I don't think that many people would base their morality on an observation of animal behaviour.

One of the peculiarites of humans is their desire to be more than what they are. This type of 'idealism' has already been mentioned on this thread.

In our thoughts we often aspire to be something more than what our instinct tries to dictate. Animals seem to be O.K with instinct so why don't we settle for it?

Quote:

Because people don't give up their identities in the face of empirical failure.

But people can simply say, we got it wrong!

Quote:

I used "we" where it was relevant and correct, for example, in claiming that "we" atheists have a more robust view of morality than that advocated by the original poster. I doubt any atheist posting here would disagree. What do you think?

Many Christian's faith is based upon some very shaky foundations.

Quote:

turton:I did not say it was the natural tendency of people (not "man") to tolerate and respect others. Rather, what I said was that education was the source of that way of thinking.

What I find interesting about this is, as values need to be taught, they are therefore not passed on genetically. We're not born with values in the same way that we're born with blue eyes or brown hair. If values are not taught they are lost.

Quote:

Sure. Otherwise, both Christianity and atheism are impossible!

Christianity teaches that people need to change. I think there are few who would argue with this! It would have a different view on how that change could come about.

Jesus spoke about being 'born again'. He was speaking about something slightly more dynamic than simply re-educating people.

Orpheous99 · 02-07-2002, 02:22 AM

Originally posted by E_muse:

Religion is something which exists in human beings and one of the major factors that differentiates us from animals.

That is one of the advantages other animals have over us. They have no need for such nonsense.

And BTW, we are animals.

Animal:

1. A living organism characterized by voluntary movement

Vorkosigan · 02-07-2002, 05:22 AM

What I find interesting about this is, as values need to be taught, they are therefore not passed on genetically. We're not born with values in the same way that we're born with blue eyes or brown hair. If values are not taught they are lost

E-muse, we ARE born with values. Do you know of any culture where it is common for men to have their first sexual experience with their mother? How about for brothers and sisters raised together to marry and sire offspring? Do you know of any culture where females do not ornament themselves? Where involuntary solitary confinement is not considered a punishment? Where people do not gossip? Where children are routinely given to total strangers for rearing, with no sense of loss on the birth-mother's part? I could go on and on.

Check out Human Universals by Don Brown. Or The Adapted Mind. Humans come with all sorts of values, morals and preferences built right in. There is no division between instinct and learning, rather, in humans and animals, instinct facilitates learning.

Michael

Gurdur · 02-07-2002, 06:16 AM

Further reading on this:

<a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0465021212/qid=1010216956/sr=1-4/ref=sr_1_11_4/103-5947974-5670219" target="_blank">The Evolution Of Cooperation</a>
Axelrod, Robert

<a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0691015678/qid=1010216956/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_11_1/103-5947974-5670219" target="_blank">The Complexity Of Cooperation</a>
Axelrod, Robert

<a href="http://http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0195101073/qid=1013093588/sr=2-1/103-5947974-5670219" target="_blank">The Adapted Mind : Evolutionary Psychology and the Generation of Culture</a>
Barkow, Jerome H.; Cosmides, Leda; and Tooby, John (editors)

<a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/007008209X/qid=1013093377/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/103-5947974-5670219" target="_blank">Human Universals</a>
Brown, Donald E.

<a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0521597080//ref=sr_1_10_1/103-5947974-5670219" target="_blank">Death, Hope and Sex : Steps to an Evolutionary Ecology of Mind and Morality</a>
Chisholm, James S.

<a href="http://www.sfu.ca/faculty/crawford/Evolutionary%2520Psychology.html" target="_blank">Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology:  Ideas, Issues, and Applications</a>
Crawford, Charles and Krebs, Dennis (editors)

<a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0226401693/ref=pd_sim_books/103-5947974-5670219" target="_blank">Moral Imagination : Implications of Cognitive Science for Ethics</a>
Johnson, Mark

Cited ftrom the review of that book:

Quote:

Using path-breaking discoveries of cognitive science, Mark Johnson argues that humans are fundamentally imaginative moral animals, challenging the view that morality is simply a system of universal laws dictated by reason. According to the Western moral tradition, we make ethical decisions by applying universal laws to concrete situations. But Johnson shows how research in cognitive science undermines this view and reveals that imagination has an essential role in ethical deliberation

<a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/041513224X/qid=1011255712/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_10_3/103-5947974-5670219" target="_blank">The Ethical Primate : Humans, Freedom and Morality</a>
Midgley, Mary

<a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0670874493/qid=1010217141/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_26_2/103-5947974-5670219" target="_blank">The Origins of Virtue: Human Instincts and the Evolution of Cooperation</a>
Ridley, Matt

<a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0674930460/qid=1010217141/sr=1-3/ref=sr_1_26_3/103-5947974-5670219" target="_blank">Unto Others : The Evolution and Psychology of Unselfish Behavior</a>
Sober, Elliott & Wilson, David Sloan

<a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0679763996/103-5947974-5670219" target="_blank">The Moral Animal : Why We Are the Way We Are : The New Science of Evolutionary Psychology</a>
Wright, Robert

Evolution of cooperation and altruism included since it often figures in such discussions
_________

gosh, first time this monster of a project that has taken over my life

has actually paid off.

Now if only the bloody board accepted HTML

instead of needing to translate into UBB

[ February 07, 2002: Message edited by: Gurdur ]

[ February 07, 2002: Message edited by: Gurdur ]

02-06-2002, 06:06 AM	#35
Kvalhion Regular Member Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Southern CA Posts: 441	It is so tiring when people attempt to compare religious morality with the reality of society. Morality found within religion is idealistic and impractical. Just like a politician, these morals give utopian ideas without any substance on how such a thing can possibly exist. I could say "Love everyone, never do anything bad, don't hurt the environment, never argue, never fight, etc" ad nauseum. Does that really say anything at all about how such a thing can possibly be accomplished? Religious morality seeks to eliminate certain aspects of natural human behavior. Obviously, by examing the past, that has not worked and will never work. It is a part of human nature that people will be jealous, angry, vengeful, dishonest, selfish, prejudicial, as well as honest, kind, generous, truthful, helpful, loving, caring, and a great number of other things. Sure, we would like to emphasize the "good" traits over the "bad" traits, but saying "Don't do bad" is ludicrous and nonsensical. Because religious morality will always be impractical wishful thinking, religionists will always be able to say "If only people were more religius, everything would be better." Yet no matter how religious people get, the same problems exist, and oftentimes even more pronounced (such as the divorce rates cited in previous replies). Like it or not, human nature exists everywhere, including within the church. There are child molesters, rapists, thiefs, people who commit fraud, etc within the church just as there are outside of the church. The degree of religion doesn't change this, despite what people would like to believe. Fortunately society has been more reality focused, providing options and remedies for when humans behave in the way they are going to behave, rather than simply stomping its food and demanding "Don't do it!" Reality requires real options and real solutions. Religious morality is merely wishful thinking. Yet isn't it fun to say "If only everyone were more religious..." [ February 06, 2002: Message edited by: Kvalhion ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-05-2002, 01:25 PM	#31
lpetrich Contributor Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Lebanon, OR, USA Posts: 16,829	I also ask what kind of "agnostic" is Guenter Lewy; what are his real metaphysical/theological beliefs?

02-06-2002, 04:02 AM	#34
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	How can the Bible be an incomplete moral guide and not point beyond itself. It's an incomplete moral guide that doesn't point beyond itself. Simple as that. Where in the Bible does it say "Look, it's not all here, think for yourselves." Secondly, the arguement that there is nothing beyond itself for the Bible to point to isn't proof that it isn't pointing beyond itself. You're right. Thought I'd toss that in there, though. People do have to base society on some kind of value system - I'm not arguing with that. I would argue that it must do it on a subjective basis. Religion is largely subjective. It is whether a basis can be found for moral values on the grounds of pure reason or whether instinct (of which religion is a part) has a part to play. Well, since people and animals have moral behavior, and had it long before they had religion, the answer is obvious that religion is not necessary for moral behavior. Didn't William Wilberforce play a significant part in that? He was most certainly a theist. So why is it that so many Christians don't see this as a problem, or at least, not a threat to their theism? Because people don't give up their identities in the face of empirical failure. Instead, they rewrite doctrine or alter interpretation to account for the changes in the world. When Shabbetai Tzvi, the would-be Jewish messiah of the 17th century, was busted by the Ottomans and forced to convert to Islam to save his life, some of his followers converted as well. They didn't say to themselves: nowhere in the Jewish scriptures is there anything about this, so obviously he can't be the Messiah. They had their new identity, it was bound up with Tzvi, and that was that. It took decades to suppress the movement, even after his natural and inevitable death. I could multiply such examples by the hundreds. For 1700 years Christians killed each other and others with gleeful abandon. Along came the secularists, and said that was a Bad Thing. So Christianity adjusted and incorporated these doctrines into Christianity in the form of the oxymoron "Christian tolerance," just as they are now in the process of coming to grips with homosexuality. Soon they will be believing it was they who invented tolerance toward gays.... But again you were using terms like 'we' as though your opinions are to be generally considered fact. I used "we" where it was relevant and correct, for example, in claiming that "we" atheists have a more robust view of morality than that advocated by the original poster. I doubt any atheist posting here would disagree. What do you think? turton:I did not say it was the natural tendency of people (not "man") to tolerate and respect others. Rather, what I said was that education was the source of that way of thinking. E_muse: Can education actually give people the power to overcome instincts which are in opposition to such teaching? Sure. Otherwise, both Christianity and atheism are impossible! Michael

02-06-2002, 09:12 AM	#36
99Percent Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: my mind Posts: 5,996	Kvalhion: Because religious morality will always be impractical wishful thinking The keyword is "wishful" of course. All religion is wishful thinking. The religious wish for life after death, for a personal god, for hell for the wrong doers, and heaven for the virtous. This is what makes it impractical. Religious morality is based on punishment done not in this life. Where is the practicallity on punishment that does not affect our current life, where the consequences of our actions cannot be seen beforehand, only imagined? religionists will always be able to say "If only people were more religius, everything would be better Yeah, what religionist fail to see is that not all people are imaginative and irrational as they are, so they careless about possible punishment/reward in the imagined afterlife. America has been more successful precisely because it has placed a system of rewards and punishments in the real secular world, not because of religion.

02-07-2002, 02:22 AM	#38
Orpheous99 Banned Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Nova Scotia, Canada Posts: 1,258	Originally posted by E_muse: Religion is something which exists in human beings and one of the major factors that differentiates us from animals. That is one of the advantages other animals have over us. They have no need for such nonsense. And BTW, we are animals. Animal: 1. A living organism characterized by voluntary movement

02-07-2002, 05:22 AM	#39
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	What I find interesting about this is, as values need to be taught, they are therefore not passed on genetically. We're not born with values in the same way that we're born with blue eyes or brown hair. If values are not taught they are lost E-muse, we ARE born with values. Do you know of any culture where it is common for men to have their first sexual experience with their mother? How about for brothers and sisters raised together to marry and sire offspring? Do you know of any culture where females do not ornament themselves? Where involuntary solitary confinement is not considered a punishment? Where people do not gossip? Where children are routinely given to total strangers for rearing, with no sense of loss on the birth-mother's part? I could go on and on. Check out Human Universals by Don Brown. Or The Adapted Mind. Humans come with all sorts of values, morals and preferences built right in. There is no division between instinct and learning, rather, in humans and animals, instinct facilitates learning. Michael

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.