No you don't. You rely on dogmatic blind faith yourself, you just rationalize that's not what you're doing because your blind faith doesn't involve a magic man in the sky.Originally Posted by RandBlade
No you don't. You rely on dogmatic blind faith yourself, you just rationalize that's not what you're doing because your blind faith doesn't involve a magic man in the sky.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Both secular and religious moral systems start from axiomic principles which are, in their own world view, about as close to objective as it is possible to get. Secular systems start with principles such as "suffering is bad", "freedom is good" and so on. Obviously, these concepts only exist in the minds of human beings and are not objective facts in the same way that, say, the existence of matter is an objective fact. But they're so close to universal amongst human beings that they can be treated as objective even if they are technically not. Religious morality starts with the proclamations of that religion's deity and since in the cosmology of religion that deity is the the creator of and most fundamental force in the universe then its wishes may be considered objective as well - in the worldview of that religion. From these starting points, people can reason about the world and their actions and determine whether or not a given action is moral or immoral.
So, they work in basically the same way except humanistic morality comes from people and religious morality comes - supposedly - from a deity.
Can you guess where I'm going with this?
Humanistic morality is superior because human beings actually, you know, exist and can be proven to exist.
Deities cannot be shown to exist, and even if they do exist their wishes cannot be known to us.
The light that once I thought compassion still casting shadows in your action
The words you shared were cold transactions that bring me to curse what you've done
When you're up there absorbed in greatness with such success you've grown complacent
I hope you scorch your many faces when you fly too close to the sun
Agreed. But like I said above, I wonder if it's possible to come up with social goals based on something completely objective using some sort of science-based criteria. For example, what if you start from scratch proceeding from the premise that, as living things, the one primary goal of human civilization should be to avoid human extinction. I choose this because objectively, in the grandest most general scheme of things, avoiding extinction is what "life does." (You can't say life "wants" to avoid its own extinction, but the overall process of life is all about perpetuating its own existence indefinitely...) From that premise you can hypothesize, test and implement all sorts of supporting social goals. It would be an interesting thought experiment to see what sort of "morals" develop... I don't think it would necessarily lead to an unpleasant civilization either - the biggest threat of human extinction comes from what humans do (either to the environment or to each other), so the new goals have to at least address the unpleasantness that makes people want to fight each other. Another goal would have to be maintaining some level of genetic diversity, which enhances a species' survival capability in the face of sudden challenges like disease or environmental change, and that means addressing genocide and racism in a way that preserves the optimal diversity....
It will never happen. But it's fun to think about.
The Rules
Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)
Just as a side note, suffering is often "good" and the lack of it "bad." Example is exercise - way too many people regard it as suffering but by a wide variety of measures it is "good" for you. And the freedom to choose not to exercise is also therefore "bad." Same goes for diet - many people regard fasting as suffering but recent evidence shows that routine fasting improves health and is "good" by a wide variety of measures. So what the hell does "good" or "bad" mean anyway? Is living past 75 "good?" Looks like suffering to a lot of people and by a wide variety of measures it certainly can be, but most 75+ year olds don't want to die, so their freedom to choose to live is causing them to suffer!
The Rules
Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)
Only you, though. You can't prove anyone else exists beyond doubt. It all could be a virtual experience pumped directly into your brain after all.
The Rules
Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)
You seem to have missed the part where those concepts are used as a starting point for the process of figuring out what is moral, not the end point.Just as a side note, suffering is often "good" and the lack of it "bad." Example is exercise - way too many people regard it as suffering but by a wide variety of measures it is "good" for you. And the freedom to choose not to exercise is also therefore "bad." Same goes for diet - many people regard fasting as suffering but recent evidence shows that routine fasting improves health and is "good" by a wide variety of measures. So what the hell does "good" or "bad" mean anyway? Is living past 75 "good?" Looks like suffering to a lot of people and by a wide variety of measures it certainly can be, but most 75+ year olds don't want to die, so their freedom to choose to live is causing them to suffer!
Balance of probabilities.
The light that once I thought compassion still casting shadows in your action
The words you shared were cold transactions that bring me to curse what you've done
When you're up there absorbed in greatness with such success you've grown complacent
I hope you scorch your many faces when you fly too close to the sun
Yeah, so? Fucker.
The Rules
Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)
Steely - I think you're missing an important point (though I applaud your attempt to bring some thought to this discussion). Yes, many religions ultimately base their moral codes on divine authority. However, any atheist will tell you that these were obviously invented by people as a way to create a functioning society. In fact, many if not most religious people would probably agree with the assertion that, though religion's precepts are rooted in divine authority, their application to everyday life is filtered through human understanding. As such, both religious and secular codes of ethics/morals are fundamentally human things, though the underlying authority for one might be a bit more compelling than the other.
I'm too lazy to write up a detailed dissection of normative vs. positive analysis here, but I touched on the same issues in a post a few years back:
http://theworldforgotten.com/showthr...ll=1#post98960
Science and objectivity has no place in these discussions. That doesn't mean that it's impossible to articulate a secular ethical code, but it's going to involve certain normative statements that aren't based in objectivity. There are a variety of proposed secular systems out there, but I don't think they're necessarily superior to a religious system just by the dint of being secular. They may be superior on the basis of other analysis - perhaps their universal application across religious beliefs is a plus (though one might argue that it's also very easy to slip into moral relativism, which is less of an issue for religiously inspired ethics). But they aren't superior because they're objective.
Our society has a whole lot of different sources for the common ethical gestalt that informs lawmaking and taboos. Some of it is religiously based (from a variety of religious traditions), some secular. But none of it is objective.
You can start with whatever axioms you like, just please for the love of sod don't turn your every idea into unchangeable dogma. Show your work
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Bah, once AI takes over all human affairs, science and objectivity will rule. (No, the AI's will be made in our image and just as irrational. Or uninterested in our mental frailties altogether. Or frightened into extinguishing us. Or or or...
The Rules
Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)
Did Alber upload himself into your superior body? Are you AlberKhan?
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Uploading can't be done. Mind is not software, it's hardware. And that hardware isn't analogous to computers as currently designed. Alber was a hopeful idiot. But that doesn't mean AI won't take over. Watch your back, be ready to drop from the grid.
The Rules
Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)
*All* legislation is based on beliefs and morality (as Flixy said and wiggin expanded on), but if they're based only on religious values....that's not compatible with a constitutional democracy that's representative of ALL the People. I'm making a distinction between freedom of religion -- and freedom from religion in legislating public policy.
What?No, I'm saying it's bullshit when legislation is proposed/framed/justified with ONLY a religious rationale and/or citing a holy text. Since there's no consensus on 'who' gets to decide which version or interpretation is the 'right' one -- in ANY religion -- that's a recipe for nightmare governance right off the bat.
<Example: that Alabama supreme court justice refused to honor federal court rulings on marriage equality, saying it's against "God's Law". That man lost his elected post when he refused to remove a Ten Commandment monument from state land, but got re-elected anyway!>
I used to wonder why some states were trying to pass bills banning "Sharia Law". Then I realized it's because bills were passed using "Christian Law" over the centuries, and even though they didn't treat ALL people equally (blacks were 2/3 a human, women couldn't vote, children had no rights, etc) -- it was the standard in its time. Even a concept like "equality" has social constructs that evolve.
For the most part, western nations strive to adapt, and reflect changes in society, culture, science, modernity -- something fundamental/orthodox religions, and theocracies can't.
GGT - Not all legislation is based on morality.
The rest of your post has you arguing against something no one is in favor of... so I'm not quite sure your point. Is there a single person on this board advocating for a theocracy? If not why do you continue to tilt against it?
People worry too much about this... kind of like they did over Y2K.
Yup adultery is that condition. (There are other debates among Christian soldiers when it comes to abuse and/or other specific items but as a general rule most Christians should agree that divorce isn't condoned by the bible). Though that being said once a divorce occurs and one party starts having extra-marital relations than the bible is clear that is adultery and therefore the marriage can be considered done. Though that is putting the cart before the horse a bit.
And not preaching against divorce is as bad in my book as not preaching against homosexuality. The biblical evidence against homosexuality is quite clear (and has been argued about on this board multiple times). Just also didn't say a word about bestiality are you going to suggest that is a reason that its OK to fuck animals per Christian doctrine?
How about this... why don't you support or not support a position independent on the reason *why* they came to that conclusion and let the item stand on it's own merits?
OK this is the first time I've had the chance for a full reply rather than silly one liners.
There is of course no such thing as objective, however my issue is with the unbending and unchangeable nature of religious dogma. As well as other positions taken dogmatically rather than based on logic and reason, which are open to interpretation.
Over time facts changes, information changes. My morals and beliefs have evolved over time and I'm able to be convinced that something I used to believe in is wrong. Its not likely as obviously it will take a lot to change a formed opinion, but its possible. My issue with dogma is that it is a bulwark against reason, against logic. If the motive behind a belief is "faith" then it ends up not mattering how illogical it is, dogma will prevent any change or reinterpretation. This to me is a bad thing. A belief should stand on its own merits based on reason and logic alone, faith is a crux against logic and reason.
Now you could theoretically argue that its a good thing, that being inflexible provides a defence against extremism. However a look at religious extremism globally shows that clearly isn't the case. Also can I emphasise that it is all dogmatically held opinions I disrespect. Communism was the same in my eyes as religion, it became a matter of dogma and no matter what evidence showed it wasn't working, unbelievers were the enemy and it became a matter of faith not evidence. It was wrong too.
Absolutely support or not a position on its merits, but a broken clock is right twice a day. If a fool believes what I believe for the wrong reasons, they're still a fool.
I'm not worried. I don't worry about asteroid strikes either. Or nuclear war. Or climate change. Or electronics-frying solar storms (well, maybe a little). Or global pandemics. Not my job, so fuck it.
The Rules
Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)
Name one that isn't.The simplest basis for laws is right vs wrong. How is that not morality?
This board has people mixing religious beliefs with politics and policy all the time, especially you. "Christian Values" is always brought into debates -- from birth control, teaching creationism in public schools, assisted suicide, gay marriage, and climate change....to wars in Iraq/Afghanistan and "American Exceptionalism" on the world stage.The rest of your post has you arguing against something no one is in favor of... so I'm not quite sure your point. Is there a single person on this board advocating for a theocracy? If not why do you continue to tilt against it?
I tilt against that because it's also rampant in US politics, especially by the GOP and 'red' southern states. Look no further than your own state of Texas for plenty of examples.
Preach all you want, that's freedom of expression. Just don't use the Bible, or Christian doctrine, as the sole basis for making laws for everyone else. Surely you wouldn't think it'd be okay if Muslims wanted a law banning burning the Quran since that violates Islamic doctrine, right?
Last edited by GGT; 02-19-2015 at 09:58 AM.
Passing a law that says you aren't allowed to burn a Quran because it violates Islamic doctrine is no more freedom limiting than campaign finance laws. A law should stand on its own merits. How and why we want to pass the law shouldn't matter - the law itself should matter. A law passed with good intentions doesn't make a law better. A law passed with bad intentions doesn't make a law worse. Passing a law because you are led by your personal moral code (religious or otherwise) shouldn't matter. What matters is if the actual piece of legislation. What does it do? Who's freedom does it restrict? What are the benefits and costs? THAT matters. None of the other stuff does.
If dogma is so rigid and inflexible why have many religious sects changed their stance on things.
The Protestant Reformation was based on logic and reason - and identifying that the church was NOT doing things the way God wanted it to be done. Luther was ready and able to debate his critics.
Yes and the protestant reformation is renknowned for having been so peaceful and amicably resolved without conflict wasn't it.If dogma is so rigid and inflexible why have many religious sects changed their stance on things.
The Protestant Reformation was based on logic and reason - and identifying that the church was NOT doing things the way God wanted it to be done. Luther was ready and able to debate his critics.
Just because dogma is rigid and inflexible doesn't mean it never changes, just that its very difficult to successfully change it, which IMO is a bad thing. Especially when its combined with a book as badly inconsistent as the Bible and combined with the other reason I don't respect organised religion which is cherrypicking. You wouldn't know it from what you hear from priests nowadays but I'm sinning right now as I write to you ... I'm wearing a jumper made from a mix of nylon, wool and polyester. Leviticus and Deutoronomy both prohibit such an abomination. There is plenty more prohibited (and ignored) from the bible, I hope you don't eat shellfish or bacon for example.
The reality of religion is that people cherrypick the parts of it the Bible they want to accept as its convenient for them and THEN apply dogma to it casting aside all unbelievers. That is the worst of all worlds.
Just a nitpick, but sha'atnez refers specifically to mixtures of wool and linen, which you did not appear to be wearing (cf your Deuteronomy source). Synthetics (and any other material) are not included in the prohibition, nor are other natural fibers. Very few garments nowadays fit that category, though some high end wool suits do. Furthermore, there are most definitely people who take these prohibitions seriously and avoid cherry-picking, including bacon, shellfish, and far more obscure rules.Yes and the protestant reformation is renknowned for having been so peaceful and amicably resolved without conflict wasn't it.
Just because dogma is rigid and inflexible doesn't mean it never changes, just that its very difficult to successfully change it, which IMO is a bad thing. Especially when its combined with a book as badly inconsistent as the Bible and combined with the other reason I don't respect organised religion which is cherrypicking. You wouldn't know it from what you hear from priests nowadays but I'm sinning right now as I write to you ... I'm wearing a jumper made from a mix of nylon, wool and polyester. Leviticus and Deutoronomy both prohibit such an abomination. There is plenty more prohibited (and ignored) from the bible, I hope you don't eat shellfish or bacon for example.
The reality of religion is that people cherrypick the parts of it the Bible they want to accept as its convenient for them and THEN apply dogma to it casting aside all unbelievers. That is the worst of all worlds.
On your broader critique, I think it's a flawed one. I agree with you that there are plenty of dogmatic religious people in the world, whose worldview and actions will not be changed irrespective of changing circumstances in the broader world. Yet the same could easily be said of people who are not particularly religious or atheists. I've run into any number of atheists who are dogmatically devoted to political positions that have little if any sense, and damn the data. Just because you don't hold to one inflexible belief system doesn't mean you can't hold to another - look at the horrors wrought by the Cultural Revolution, for example. For that matter, I think we all know just how much religions have reinvented themselves over the years in response to changing circumstances, and how flexible 'dogma' can be when it needs to change. In short, you can redefine religion to include any 'dogmatic' philosophy and exclude any people or faiths that move with the times, but that seems rather intellectually dishonest. Better just to argue against dogmatic positions period and leave the specific motivation - religious or secular - out of the scope of the discussion.
For that matter, I think that although the application of our moral principles tends to vary quite a bit with the circumstances, most people do develop an underlying 'universal' moral compass by which they guide their actions. I'm not talking about specific positions like 'abortion is evil' or 'evolution is a lie', but rather the broad principles that actually motivate much of our laws - things like minimizing human suffering, and the value of individual freedoms, etc, etc. These basic axioms tend not to change very much for anyone, and I'd hazard a bet that includes you. The exact way in which these principles interact and result in actions may indeed change with changing circumstances, but the underlying principles tend to be pretty fixed. So, in a manner of speaking, most of us are guilty of being dogmatic, even if our surface applications of morality to things like laws may vary with circumstance. I am actually quite suspicious of moral relativism; a bit of dogma has its value.
I addressed a few of your concerns pre-emptively saying that may concern wasn't just limited to religion but to overly-dogmatic positions taken in general, specifically referencing Communism as an example (covering the Cultural Revolution etc).
Religions do evolve over time, because they're all invented by man and not anything objective that makes sense. But typically slowly and with great resistance. I agree that a bit of dogma can be good, you need some standing strong, but too much is a great problem when you're dogmatically wrong.
Yes, I know you did - hence my comment about arbitrarily redefining religion to fit your concerns. You expand the definition of religion to include dogmatic secular positions you disagree with, and conveniently subsume within your definition those religions (and religious people) who show remarkable flexibility and precious little dogmatic insistence on anything. My point is that your problem isn't really religion - at least on the metric you're identifying here.
Oh, please, see above about 'objective' morality. It doesn't exist.Religions do evolve over time, because they're all invented by man and not anything objective that makes sense.
I think the problem here is that many of those here castigating religion in politics/policymaking as the root of all evil are thinking about those very vocal and very obnoxious individuals who bang on about God and religion in a very public manner as justification for their actions. Obviously this is distasteful and often the positions espoused by these people are uncompromising. That does not, however, come close to encompassing the true extent of how much religiously based morality informs people's actions (and how they write and pass legislation). A large proportion of (most?) people have a fairly limited set of moral axioms that they use to guide their actions, and they quietly go about their life living by them as best they can without telling everyone else about it. I don't find it any more offensive than an equivalent atheist with some secular moral construction - we need some sort of system by which to act, and at their root they are all human and somewhat arbitrary.
No I didn't expand religion to cover secular positions, you misread that. I said that religion wasn't alone in being guilty of being overly dogmatic, that other dogmatically held matters of faith are just as bad as religion.
I agree. That was my point, a problem with many "believers" is that they take their beliefs as Objective Truth as ordained by God. Which its not.Oh, please, see above about 'objective' morality. It doesn't exist.
I don't remotely think that religion is the root of all evil.I think the problem here is that many of those here castigating religion in politics/policymaking as the root of all evil are thinking about those very vocal and very obnoxious individuals who bang on about God and religion in a very public manner as justification for their actions. Obviously this is distasteful and often the positions espoused by these people are uncompromising. That does not, however, come close to encompassing the true extent of how much religiously based morality informs people's actions (and how they write and pass legislation). A large proportion of (most?) people have a fairly limited set of moral axioms that they use to guide their actions, and they quietly go about their life living by them as best they can without telling everyone else about it. I don't find it any more offensive than an equivalent atheist with some secular moral construction - we need some sort of system by which to act, and at their root they are all human and somewhat arbitrary.
Yes people do need axioms to guide their lives but when "because God said so" replaces "because it makes sense" that isn't a good thing IMO.
If you think religious expressions and campaign donations are equal forms of "speech", don't forget that "freedom of speech" isn't absolute, and has (US) constitutional limits.
Practically every law 'restricts' freedom, so unless you're an anarchist I don't know where you're going with that.A law should stand on its own merits. How and why we want to pass the law shouldn't matter - the law itself should matter. A law passed with good intentions doesn't make a law better. A law passed with bad intentions doesn't make a law worse. Passing a law because you are led by your personal moral code (religious or otherwise) shouldn't matter. What matters is if the actual piece of legislation. What does it do? Who's freedom does it restrict? What are the benefits and costs? THAT matters. None of the other stuff does.
And I think WHY people pass laws does matter, especially if it's based on some religious doctrine/dogma that doesn't match scientific, social, cultural (or even logical) modern standards. Key word modern.
Considering the long course of human history, people weighing their freedoms and "cost-benefit ratios" is still a relatively 'new' concept. IMO, too many people still rely on some religious leader (Pastor, Pope, Imam, Rabbi) and their interpretations of holy texts/doctrines...and extrapolate that to The Commons.
wiggin, if morality isn't 'objective', and you're suspicious of moral relativism, then what good is dogma?
Last edited by GGT; 02-23-2015 at 12:18 PM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote