Theli

long winded fool...

I was under the impression that all morality exists because of instincts. It usually just comes down to self-preservation and the need for social bonds. Any gray-areas, I think will always exist, as our surrounding world was clearly not designed to be judged by morality.
For instance, we can both agree that killing other human beings is wrong. But is killing animals wrong? If so, is it equally wrong to kill all sorts of animals?
I mean, if you beat a dog to death many people will react on it and say that what you did was VERY wrong. But if you step on an ant, noone cares.
I think (as you also might) that there should be as much reason and as little emotionally response as it possibly could, when it comes to morality. But without forsaking it's goal.

Amos

So and where do you think instincts come from? Instincts are the memory of our soul and they are grey because morality is conventional and can change over time and place.

rainbow walking

Hi Amos,
How do you support a claim that man has a soul?

Keith Russell

Long-Winded Fool said:
I see no reason why science can't coexist with faith if faith is only wisdom.

Keith: Calling 'faith' 'wisdom' still does not identify the concept to which your use of both terms refers.

LWF: My definition of faith is merely the understanding of the golden rule.

Keith: But, the Golden Rule is inherently flawed. We do not all wish to be treated similarly. Think of masochists, or the modern primitives...

LWF: Know who you are and know that you are equal to others and vice versa.

Keith: I know who I am, and that means that I know that I am better than some, and worse than others.

LWF: As Jesus said, "Know thyself."

Keith: He wasn't the first to say it, and not everyone who says that, means the same thing by it.

LWF: In this respect, faith is reason.

Keith: You have not demonstrated this.

LWF: Faith in the reality of imaginary things is not reasonable; therefore I think that this is less faith than it is ignorance of science. If you know yourself and you know that reason conquers instinct, then you have faith in God, as Jesus had faith in his Father.

Keith: This does not follow. I 'know myself', and I know that reason can conquer instinct, though I also know that most people do not choose to use reason, let alone to use it thus. Now, I do not have faith in 'God', so one of your statements is flawed.

LWF: This, I believe, is the unwritten law on everyone's hearts that is spoken of in Romans. The "divine plan" is evolution. Specifically, evolution away from instincts and into reason. With reason, man can be aware of his environment and can control his destiny. With reason conquering instinct, there would be no poverty or war. Men would live in harmony because absolute reason, like mathematics and physics, is the same for all, and differing opinions (in respect to the proper application of reason) come from selfish instincts.

Keith: But, I believe in rational egoism; rational selfishness. How can you say that reason would end selfish instincts, and still say that reason leads to self-knowledge? How can you claim that reason ends selfishness, while I believe that reason necessitates self-interest? Again, you have not proved your assertions, only claimed them.

LWF: Is this idealistic view impossible? Or is it possible that in the future that all men will worship reason and that instinct will be forgotten?

Keith: Careful. I don't 'worship'. Reason is not an end in itself; only the means to an end.

LWF: Science, of course, is an ongoing quest to understand the universe, however "faith" is merely a quest to understand oneself.

Keith: Odd use of the word 'faith'. I would say that individual, human life should be a quest to understand one's self. (I would also say that very few individual humans honestly, sincerely attempt this quest.)

LWF: The presence of differing opinions in science is constructive, however when it comes to morality, differences are usually destructive. I believe that applying reason can show the black and white nature of morality and eliminate the "gray areas" which only exist because of instinct.

Keith: Believe it all you want. That in no way makes it so.

LWF: As for whether Jesus was symbolic of Truth or was invented to represent Truth, I think it is possible that the man called Jesus of Nazareth actually lived--

Keith: Another claim. Care to support this claim with any independently verifiable evidence?

LWF: --and was executed for claiming himself to be King of the Jews.

Keith: Again, an unsupported claim.

LWF: It is possible that he concluded this farfetched idea from reading the scriptures of the day and the prophecies contained therein. Since his wisdom is clear in his allegorically profound sermons that few even today fully comprehend, he may have had quite a convincing argument as to why he was the prophesied King if the Jews, and may have convinced the four evangelists that he actually was. After enduring torture and a slow death without retracting his royal claim, and after the apostle's visions and His fulfilled prophecies, the four evangelists probably determined that he was telling the truth and that instead of reading and interpreting all the old stories of their current scriptures, that all anyone really needed to do was to follow Jesus' advice and everyone would become as wise as He was and do all the things He did and greater. Indeed, we can move mountains today by simply using our reason to figure out how to do it.

Keith: Yeah, so remind me for what do we need Jesus, again?

LWF: (Or praying to God to do it for us; same thing.)

Keith: Same thing? OK, you pray to God, and I'll drive a Caterpillar, and let's see who gets the job done, OK?

LWF: So perhaps they used a real man to symbolize Truth. Perhaps the man Jesus was even wise enough to foresee that his words and deeds would be recorded and so called himself "the Truth" to help future readers perceive the allegory, whether his evangelists did or not. Faith in God, according to my interpretation of the Bible, is faith in properly applied science and in your own reasoning ability.

Keith: OK, trusting in properly applied science, and one's own reasoning ability, has exactly what to do with the Bible, and it's claims of Jesus?

LWF: Prayer is critical reflection and actually using your reason.

Keith: Then, nearly every religious person is praying incorrectly, and only we atheists are doing it right. I think you've perverted the meaning of 'prayer', here.

LWF: Doubt in your ability to reason is Satan, or instinctual fear.

Keith: Well, which is it?

LWF: Be honest and rational, and you will evolve (be saved.) Be irrational, afraid, and lustful, and you will devolve (be damned.)

Keith: Whoa, wait just a minute. Lust is evil? I disagree...

LWF: I don't know what will happen to me when I die, but I do know that as long as I am trying to be an honest and rational person while I live, I am doing God's will, having faith in and taking Jesus' advice, and avoiding Satan. Or I could say I am contributing to the goodness of the world, having faith in and using my own reasoning ability, and controlling my instincts, if atheism is more comfortable than Christianity. I think these are one and the same and, from reading the words of Jesus, I think he saw them as one and the same also.

Keith: Many Christians would not be happy to hear this!

LWF: And I know that my actions affect others around me and contribute to their "baptism" in reason, their recognition of their own selfish and obsolete instincts, and the realization that these instincts are incompatible with the golden rule.

Keith: Again, the Golden Rule is irreparably flawed, and selfishness can be very, very rational.

LWF: I don't think it's so farfetched that the ancient writers saw this and put it into allegory. If I could think of it, surely ancient philosophers and deep thinkers could come up with it and much more. I'm only at the tip of the iceberg in figuring out all the symbolism of the books and applying them to reality. But I think that an objective mind can reveal the hidden things contained in the Bible, and in doing so, become wise like Jesus was.

Keith: In what way was Jesus 'wise'? To what concept does your use of the word 'wise' refer?

LWF: "He who has ears let him hear..." For those who think critically and objectively, see if they can figure this one out...

And people say the Bible is a lot of worthless bunk.

Keith: Yes, they say that.

(And, so do I.)

Keith.

rainbow walking

Hi Keith,
I think the golden rule, as espoused by Jesus, says, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." IMO this is far different from the way you've represented it here. (Although I realize LWF made it read the way you've responded to it.)

The way Jesus articulated it is to put the onus on each of us to channel our self interest in a positive way through our relationships, rather than just to treat everyone equally. Not that there's anything wrong with treating everyone equally...when it's warranted, but it is a greater challenge to treat folks the way you want to be treated when they aren't reciprocating. But I don't think one needs a theistic belief in a god to master their emotions.

Theli

I missed you, Amos.

Amos

You answered that claim in not recognizing your own soul because your soul is that part of you that you do not know.

Your soul will be gone when you know who you really are and at that time it can be said that you no longer have a soul. I think "the see was no longer" (Rev.21:1), is equal to the "soul was no longer" when the new heaven and new earth replaces our old image of heaven and earth. All it amounts to is a change of vision, really, wherein our perspective of heaven and earth changes. Yes, kind of like the transubstantiation of heaven and earth . . . why not!

The same is true with God. God does not exist because if he did we could not become God, and if we can't become God how can we have knowledge of God.

rainbow walking

You answered that claim in not recognizing your own soul
because your soul is that part of you that you do not know.

One cannot recognize that which one does not know. There are many things that I do not know. That is why I ask questions and seek rational explanations.

Your soul will be gone when you know who you really are and at that time it can be said that you no longer have a soul.


Then how will I ever know I had a soul?

I think "the see was no longer" (Rev.21:1), is equal to the "soul was no longer" when the new heaven and new earth replaces our old image of heaven and earth.


Do you now.


All it amounts to is a change of vision, really, wherein our perspective of heaven and earth changes. Yes, kind of like the transubstantiation of heaven and earth . . . why not!

You mean like the regeneration spoken of by Jesus?

The same is true with God. God does not exist because if he did we could not become God, and if we can't become God how can we have knowledge of God.

Why should we even wish to become god? I thought you said we had to become who we really are? Are you saying that we really are god? These are very strange assertions Amos.

long winded fool

Obviously I'm not arguing about the literal interpretation of the bible, or for modern Christianity. I do believe that the majority of christians have it wrong. If you can't accept that the God of the bible could be anything but a classical supernatural deity like Zeus, then you won't agree with my argument in any way. My only "proof" of this allegorical interpretation is that it seems to work, though as I said I still haven't explained everything.

Keith, you seem to believe that morality is relative? While I believe that practical morality is relative, absolute morality is not. In other words, morality should not be relative. There is always some moral that you think everyone should obey, and will force on someone else if they don't. Everyone believes that there are moral absolutes, even if they disagree on what they are. I think that applying reason will eventually find these moral absolutes. Ask yourself rational questions about a "gray area." Why is it wrong to beat a dog? Why is it wrong to kill an infant outside of the womb but not inside? Why is it wrong to fly planes into buildings? While there may always be gray areas, this doesn't mean that absolute morality is not black and white. This may just mean that no one is absolutely moral. Will there always be contradictions to the laws of Physics? Not the absolute laws of physics maybe, but to erroneous human laws. Those who think that gray areas allow them to be immoral ought to be taught differently. I am not an absolutely moral person, and when I am doing something immoral, or wrong, and someone informs me of the wrongness of my action, I ask myself, "Why is this wrong?" I apply reason and I always come out with either, "He was right and I was wrong," or vice versa, or "We were both wrong." "I can't figure it out, so I'll just assume we're both right," is not an acceptable answer for me. Two conflicting morals cannot both be right, just as two conflicting physical laws can't both be right. I think this is the flaw you're seeing in the golden rule. When practicing the golden rule, you are going to be treated the way you don't want to be treated, and you are going to treat others the way they don't want to be treated. The golden rule is not meant to make everybody feel good, (IMO) it is meant to show us when we are failing to use reason and acting out of instinct to the detriment of others. It is not the ultimate morality; it is the best tool to find the ultimate morality. If I am a masochist and I slap my non-masochist girlfriend, she's not going to be my girlfriend for very long. This will show me that, since other people don't share my morality, maybe I better examine why I hold this morality and why they hold theirs and see which is more rational.

I know who I am, and that means that I know that I am better than some, and worse than others.

And by what authority do you know you are better than some and worse than others? And does this mean you ought to treat those worse than you differently than you treat those better than you? Obviously you will tend to take advice from the wise and give advice to the foolish, but do you treat them any differently? Isn't it better to analyze the advice of both the wise and the foolish equally, so that you may become more like the wise and so that the foolish may become more like you? The golden rule doesn't mean that you are equal in intelligence to everyone else, it means you are to treat everyone equally, as in helping those in need with the same compassion that you accept help from those you need. Everyone deserves equal treatment, whether they get it or not.

Lust is obviously not evil in itself. It is a beneficial instinct. Fear is not evil in itself. It is a beneficial instinct. Evil is merely allowing instinct to master reason. We are taught to conquer our fears and embrace reason. We are also often taught to celebrate our sexuality. Why is it okay to give in to one potentially beneficial instinct and not another? Why can't we celebrate fear and be bigots? Lust is equal to fear. They are the two prime survival instincts of mammals. Preservation of the self and preservation of the species. Reason should have control over both. To allow either to master your reason is "evil," or not intellectually evolving. (Again, I don't see evil as some supernatural force from another dimension. Sinning is just missing the mark. Not using reason.)

I don't think selfishness and self-knowledge are the same thing. Selfishness is "me above others." There isn't necessarily any self-knowledge involved. Self-knowledge is simply knowing who or what I am. There isn't necessarily any selfishness involved.

Same thing? OK, you pray to God, and I'll drive a Caterpillar, and let's see who gets the job done, OK?

"Prayer" to "God" is what told you to drive the Caterpillar. Remember, saying that critical analysis is what made you drive the caterpillar does not refute this under my analogy. Prayer is reflection, God is reason. You reflected on what the reasonable course of action would be, and so you jumped into the Cat.

Then, nearly every religious person is praying incorrectly, and only we atheists are doing it right. I think you've perverted the meaning of 'prayer', here.

It is you and whoever taught you what it means to pray who is perverting the meaning of prayer. I use the allegorical, biblical meaning that Jesus seems to have used.

I read an article once that showed that, if you assume that Jesus of Nazareth was just a myth and are basing this on historical evidence, then you must assume that Homer, Plato, Buddha, Julius Caesar, Genghis Khan, and even Napoleon Bonaparte are even less believable myths, if you are logical. There is more evidence in the form of historical writings and testimony for Jesus than for all other ancient historical figures and almost all historical figures period. His reputation to have performed miracles is not a rational basis for doubting his existence. I claimed that Jesus existed and that you ought to believe he existed on the basis of the fact that I assume you accept that these other historical figures existed and more or less did the things they're recorded to have done. The existence of Jesus is technically easier to support than the existence of Napoleon Bonaparte, and a rational person unfamiliar with either would assume Jesus was a surer bet than Napoleon looking solely at historical writings. You can quibble about whether or not Jesus was the Son of God and performed miracles in the same way you can quibble about whether or not Genghis Khan was turned away from invading India by the sight of a unicorn. Both men can be presumed to have existed.

Amos

You have no choice because you were created in the image of God and once you know who you really are you will realize that you are the continuity of God. The alternative would be to live the unexamined life.