I am going to ask a question, please don't answer 42 (you smarmy sons of weasels).
I just finished reading the last book in the homecoming series, and I have to say I love the way OSC gets me thinking about certain topics.
At any rate, here is my question:
In a world devoid of concrete evidence of any kind of supreme being, what is the point to life, and if there is no point other than just being, then why follow any type of moral code, or why not just throw yourself off of a cliff and skip all the agony and pain you are bound to encounter?
I will give my thoughts on this here in a bit, you people can tell me what you think though.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Read some existentialists.
They had some interesting thoughts on this, but then almost all of them committed suicide.
I think it's basically a "live like a weed, live like flower" proposition. You should live, but being mindful of others, that you don't tread too harshly on their turf.
-Bok
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"In a world devoid of concrete evidence of any kind of supreme being, what is the point to life, and if there is no point other than just being..."
Well, I don't know about you, but I've been ENJOYING my life so far.
Posted by St. Yogi (Member # 5974) on :
42
Posted by Chaz_King (Member # 3184) on :
This question came about, because I was having a conversation with my wife on what our purposes here are, and where those purposes come from.
I tend to think instead of killing yourself to avoid the agony I would rather live for the great moments that you would also live through. So that point is right out of the equation for me.
As far as the moral code point goes, I think that this question comes down to how much value you put on civilized society, but then where does that value come from?
Even primates have some form of civilization. so what drives them, what is their purpose other to live and procreate? Are our purposes any different?
More the point, is everything driven by emotion? Do animals as well as humans end up creating these civilizations because we can't bare to deal with losing our young, or our loved ones?
I mean this is the very core as to why so many wars come about. People want to protect the societies that they value from outside changes or intrusions.
In the end do we really have a purpose, or are we just another kind of pack animal with a more sophisticated form of communication that allows us to think we are more than we actually are?
Posted by St. Yogi (Member # 5974) on :
quote: In a world devoid of concrete evidence of any kind of supreme being, what is the point to life, and if there is no point other than just being, then why follow any type of moral code, or why not just throw yourself off of a cliff and skip all the agony and pain you are bound to encounter?
I think all of us ask ourselves that question from time to time.
I don't know, but I think that the meaning of life is to try and live a meaningful life. Whatever that is.
Or rather, the meaning of life is to try and find meaning in your life.
Or maybe, the meaning of life is to continually search for the meaning of life.
But I might be wrong.
Posted by Chaz_King (Member # 3184) on :
quote: Well, I don't know about you, but I've been ENJOYING my life so far.
Me too
The question is a bit over dramatized, but you understand what I mean. If there is no point or purpose, then why bother?
There have been studies that show that once people have been cut off from society (lost their job, wife, or some other connection). They have a much higher mortality rate unless they find something else to keep them going (and the study isn't strictly talking about suicides... some people would just die of heart failure, or lack of nutrition and such).
Posted by Elphie (Member # 6535) on :
For me, the meaning of life is LIFE. My beliefs say that life and the experiences you have are the sole purpose or the Soul's Purpose, if you will.
As for moral code and such, I believe that each human being is born with their own innate sense of what is right or wrong for them...However, on a grander scale, I believe there is no "right or wrong", but only relativity. Each experience, regardless if it is deemed Bad or Good is an experience nonetheless and therefore, in my mind, is worth it.
I recommend Conversations with God by Neale Donald Walsh. This book changed my life, my views, and opened my mind and allowed me to remember Who I Am. Take a look...it also appeals to sf fans in the way the ideas are talked about, as well as the ideas themselves.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Even primates have some form of civilization.
Not according to any definition of civilization I have heard. What definition are you using?
Posted by Chaz_King (Member # 3184) on :
quote: Not according to any definition of civilization I have heard. What definition are you using?
I use the term loosely, but perhaps I should just replace it with "society".
There is a certain hierarchy among primates, as well as certain "social rules".
I am not so much comparing our society to theirs, but asking if their perceived purpose tends to be much different than ours.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
[edit to add: This is not necessarily in direct response to Chaz, but rather a more general response to the whole cultural complex that his questions represent to me.]
As I've said so many times on this site, I don't believe that an outside deity gives my life meaning or a reason to be good and yet I find my life exremely meaningful and I don't actually go around killing and/or raping people. These are to me simply natural outgrowths of my character. I am "good" because I choose to be. My life is meaningful because I create meaning by living. These are not things I doubt any more than I doubt the air that I breathe.
The question for me is, how much does your need for an outside entity reflect deformities in your character? Is it just that you never grew past the stage where your parents'/people in authority's approval was your defining aspect or is their actually some validity to your view? For example, if it is true that you wouldn't do the right thing if some outside force wasn't making you, is this actually a property of who you are, or is it merely a reflection of an underlying immaturity that you could grow out of?
It's not really my place to say about one person's individual soul. Maybe you are just intrinsically immoral and weak who actually needs to submit to an outside power to deal with your pitiable state. Or you may be right and I'm deluding myself into being a reasonably good person who finds joy and strength in the meaning that I construct in my life.
---
Obviously, I'm overstating my case here. I was trying to be deliberately insulting, in part because I feel like this is actually the dichotomy that exists between our viewpoints, but mostly to illustrate just how insulting the oft-repeated assumptions that, because I don't orient my life around some external force, that I am a monster who lives a meaningless life. Not that I'm insulted, mind you, so please don't feel a need to appologize on my account. It's just that, when you start the question with that as an assumption and disregard any evidence that doesn't fit your assumption, even asking becomes an exercise is self-deception. My life isn't meaningful by your standards, not because it is intrinsically without meaning, but because you start out defining meaning as "centered around an outside force". Likewise, I believe that it is specifically the belief that people are intrinsically evil and need to be forced to choose the right or at least refrain from the wrong that keeps you from maturing into someone who knows the joys and strength of consciously choosing to do the right because you want to. To put it another way, your belief only makes sense to you because it makes sense for you and it only makes sense for you because it has stunted your moral development.
[ June 02, 2004, 12:11 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by Chaz_King (Member # 3184) on :
quote: The question for me is, how much does your need for an outside entity reflect deformities in your character? Is it just that you never grew past the stage where your parents'/people in authority's approval was your defining aspect or is their actually some validity to your view? For example, if it is true that you wouldn't do the right thing if some outside force wasn't making you, is this actually a property of who you are, or is it merely a reflection of an underlying immaturity that you could grow out of?
Actually it was a hypothetical question based on other people I have observed, and disregarding my own experience and feelings.
To take it to a personal level, I don't know if there is a supreme being, or whether or not there are any rules set into place by that being that I should follow. Instead I live my life, and treat people with respect and compassion because I believe that they deserve it until they prove me wrong.
As far as my purpose goes, I really have no clue what my actual purpose is. I want to believe that I am here to help as many people as I can whether it is directly or indirectly. But at the same time I think that it would be fairly egotistical of me to believe that that was the sole reason I was put on this planet .
Of course that doesn't mean I will stop trying to help people.
[ June 02, 2004, 12:22 PM: Message edited by: Chaz_King ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Is it just that you never grew past the stage where your parents'/people in authority's approval was your defining aspect or is their actually some validity to your view?
[ June 02, 2004, 12:27 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
quote:In a world devoid of concrete evidence of any kind of supreme being, what is the point to life, and if there is no point other than just being, then why follow any type of moral code, or why not just throw yourself off of a cliff and skip all the agony and pain you are bound to encounter?
Well... the point to life is to live!! The point is for our genes to survive. We are the Universe made manifest. We are "star stuff". For myself, I follow a moral code because I recognize that every human and all matter are made of the same things and are all realated. Each individual is a wave in an ocean, individual, but connected to each other and all Creation. For example, to kill another human would be to kill a part of myself.
As for suicide... well that's the point isn't it. We are at a crossroads in our development as a race and society. We will either kill ourselves off or advance to the next step.
I say we owe it to the universe to survive as the only known sentient beings... we are peices of the universe made self aware to explore itself.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Chaz, For me the problem lies in the question that you're asking, not in the answers that you come up with. Rater than asking "Why am I here?" I think that it's better to accept the reality of your existence and ask "Now that I'm here, what am I going to do?" I realize that this may sound like a simple difference, but it's really a way towards a fundamentally different way of life. Or it least it is for me.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Chaz, I think if you take Squick's statement in a more general "you = you all", it may better present his point.
kat, realize that the statement you find so disgusting is often the way a religious person's opinion on this matter sounds to others. Except it has more pity in it. Squick was just trying to cut off the inherent bias in the initial question of this thread. That it makes sense that there is purpose to this life if there is a greater authority keeping interest in us, versus the "deity-free" lifestyle That assumption, while widely held, is rather insulting to people of Spuick's opinion, and further, makes Squick have to play on your turf, if he tries to answer it on its own.
-Bok
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
It isn't true. It is disgusting. To think it means that the thinker has a complete contempt for those whose motivations they don't understand, and so assigns the most degrading and infantile reasons for feelings they haven't felt. It implies both a lack of imagination and unbelievable disrespect.
It's also wrong. All judgements from such are suspect.
Added: It is wrong to assume that motivation is the only possible one. It may apply to some people. But Squick SHOULD know better than to think it is the only way available or probable.
[ June 02, 2004, 01:10 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Chaz_King (Member # 3184) on :
LOL
OK... let me give the basis for this.
My wife is a biochemist, and very much the scientist. In the discussion we were talking about what we thought the purpose of life was, or if there even is a purpose. We aren't talking about purpose in just our lives, we are talking about purpose on the large scale of humanity as a whole over thousands of years.
In the large scale whether or not the individual follows a moral code, or says to hell with it and throws themselves off of a cliff, was there really any point to anyones actions ever?
Personally I think there is, as I stated before, a need to help people and be good to people, and as long as I don't think we have some major goal as a race, my goal is to try to make this world a better place for my kids (when I get around to having some) and to raise my children in a way that they will try to do the same. Everyone may not be happy all the time, but I still want to make it a good place for most people to live.
[ June 02, 2004, 01:13 PM: Message edited by: Chaz_King ]
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
quote: In a world devoid of concrete evidence of any kind of supreme being, what is the point to life, and if there is no point other than just being, then why follow any type of moral code, or why not just throw yourself off of a cliff and skip all the agony and pain you are bound to encounter?
While I think this question is funny, I have never actually thought about the answer all that much. I believe in a supreme being. I honestly have a hard time understanding what the point to life is without a "supreme being" (in my case, the christian God).
So in effect, I want to know the answer to that too. Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
quote: I say we owe it to the universe to survive as the only known sentient beings... we are peices of the universe made self aware to explore itself.
Well, we are the only known sentient beings as far as humanity knows. And when it comes to what humanity knows in relation to the universe, we're not that smart. Posted by Chaz_King (Member # 3184) on :
Squicky to simplify the question:
Is there really a purpose to our lives?
If so, then as a race what is the purpose?
If not, then why bother with morals or life at all?
The reason I stated it with the "if there is no evidence of a higher being", is because there are many people that feel their purpose in life is to fulfill the purposes of that higher being, and I wanted to weed out those answers.
Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
quote:If not, then why bother with morals or life at all?
I'm not sure if this is a rhetorical question or not. If not, you may want to read a little about [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma]the prisoner's dilemma[/url], especially the iterated version. Extend this simple model to real-world interactions as you see fit.
Another good point of view for a practical understanding of morality is the field of evolutionary psychology. Steven Pinker's How the Mind Works and The Language Instinct are good places to start (good reads, too).
[edit: ubb links. grr.]
[edit 2: can't figure out the stupid url tag. Must be the %27 in the url. Giving up now.]
[ June 02, 2004, 01:49 PM: Message edited by: Mike ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Likewise, I believe that it is specifically the belief that people are intrinsically evil and need to be forced to choose the right or at least refrain from the wrong that keeps you from maturing into someone who knows the joys and strength of consciously choosing to do the right because you want to. To put it another way, your belief only makes sense to you because it makes sense for you and it only makes sense for you because it has stunted your moral development.
Nothing you've posted sums up your lack of understanding of how others perceive religion as these two statements. The idea that belief in a diety (or, to be more specific as you've stated in other posts, mainstream Christianity) equals the "need to be forced to choose the right or at least refrain from the wrong" as well as the claim that the belief stunts moral development are remarkably ill-informed and mistaken.
Dagonee
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Well, I'll confess that a belief in God probably is all that keeps me from running around robbing banks. That and I lack the personality for effectively intimidating others. But maybe I could read a self help book for the latter.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Okay, I guess it's possible. But pooka doesn't speak for everyone.
Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
Yeah, we actually had a thread that turned to this topic a while ago (a year or so, perhaps?). I remember several people, like pooka, admitted that their behavior would take a turn for the worse if they somehow found out that there was no higher power.
[edit: on rereading pooka's post, I couldn't tell if it was tongue-in-cheek or not. Sorry 'bout that if I misinterpreted.]
[ June 02, 2004, 02:15 PM: Message edited by: Mike ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
But it isn't the ONLY reason possible.
There are all sorts of stages of moral development, both with and without a belief in God. I freely admit that there are people of all ages at all stages. But what Squick is implying is that there are all sorts of stages for people who do not believe in God, but only one for those who do. The lowest one. That's wrong, incomplete, and surprisingly short-sighted and unsightful for someone with any modicum of a sense of humor.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Dag, It's not the religious beliefs themselves that logically suggest this worldview, but rather the often repeated characterization of people who don't believe in God as necessarily devoid of morals. When people assume that athiests are necesarily monsters, what they are really saying is that they believe that without the external restraints placed on them, they'd be monsters. In fact, at one point or another while we were dicussing this, I quoted a post from someone who said almost exactly this.
Look, I can argue this from the traditional religious viewpoint, and I think it has some validity. I can argue it from probably about 6 or so other viewpoints that I also think have validity. I'm trying to get at a couple of points here.
First, the views that I'm arguing likewise have validity to them. There is a strong current of parent/authority worship in religion. It is not in fact free from the human weaknesses that plauge every other aspect of human existence (I'd argue it's more vulnerable than most). There are a lot of people whose moral development is stunted because they believe that said moral development is impossible. etc., etc. etc. What I'm saying is accurate in many cases. You've come back with, "Well, it's not true in all cases, so you're completely wrong." I'm playing the 80/20 game and you're playing either/or,
edit: Or to add, this is why we see the truncated form of Pascal's Wager so often. That is, you should follow God because if he exits, you go to heaven if you follow him and hell if you don't, but if he doesn't exist, then at most you've just wasted a little bit of time. end edit.
Second, I can argue this from at least 5 angles, probably more. Can you argue it from 2? I don't mind so much if people understand the viewpoint I'm putting out there and decide that it doesn't work for them. What I'm specifically taking issue with is that, by the way they frame the question, they show that don't believe such a viewpoint (or any viewpoint that doesn't conform to their basic assumptions) even exists. Or perhaps that it does exist, but it is not worth an ounce of respect or an attempt at understanding.
I wasn't trying to be tolerant or completely accurate with my response. I was trying to make these points. I don't acutally believe in the same way I wrote. I think that the insulting way I posted my objections does a pretty good job of mirroring the way our cultural assumptions insults others. If you accept that you are as insulting as you felt I was being, if you understand the reason why you felt insulted, I think you'll go a long way towards overcoming your blindness in this matter.
---
Again, I'm using the general you. If you feel it doesn't apply to you, then it doesn't.
[ June 02, 2004, 02:44 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Squick, everything you say drips with contempt. It makes all your statements suspect.
Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
quote:But it isn't the ONLY reason possible.
Absolutely. In fact, I was horrified to learn that people thought this way, or be willing to admit it. It's so completely foreign to my way of thinking.
Squick is being deliberately inflamatory. But I think his point, if rudely conveyed, still stands: there is something implicitly condescending in the assumptions underlying the original question.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Squick is being deliberately inflamatory.
Aw, see, I don't think I'd add the adverb.
If the original question is "Why do people who don't believe in a moral code handed down from a higher power bother following any moral code at all?", then it is also short-sighted.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
We are waves in the ocean! Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
Perhaps it is that Squick is less tolerant of ignorance than I am. I think my links above (on the prisoner's dilemma and evolutionary psychology) do pretty well to answer the question, at least for some of us. Once you understand the answer, though (or one of the many other possible answers -- or that a rational answer exists at all), it's not much of a stretch to see why the original question could be interpreted as insulting.
I was not insulted, though. Just a little amused.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
I'm more of a ripple in an oil-slicked puddle in an abandoned lot in Newark.
-Bok
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Chaz, Again, we're running into a problem of reference. Your questions don't really make sense from the point of view I'm espousing.
Does life have a purpose? No, not intrinsically. I don't think that there is some set thing that you have to live up to or else you're failing your purpose. As a general thing, I think that people should try to increase and improve themselves as much as possible.
My idea of purpose or meaning is only partially about some future goal. Most of it is about living. You live in the present and that's also where you find meaning. Central to this is that, again, there is no intrinsic meaning. Human beings have the ability to see and react to the world in different ways. We have the ability (to a large extent) to choose the world we live in. To mangle a quote: "Two men looked out of prison bars. One saw mud, the other stars." We are beings not just of conciousness, but of creative conciousness.
To give a fanciful explanation of this, I play around with a story concept that people are a form of theogenic sperm, that the gods create us so that, by use of our creative abilities, we create new gods. While probably not literaly true, I actually think that this has a sort of metaphorical truth.
As to why people should have morals and try to live and such, part of that is just assumed values that I freely admit that I'm imposing on the situation without rational basis, but I think a larger part of it is that this conforms better with reality than not doing so. While people have a lot of creative latitude over the type of world they live in, I think that there are also many things held constant, among them the requirements for health. The way the waorld and people are constituted, I think that they are both quantitative and qualitively better if they live this way. This could be the result of a divine plan, human choice, evolution, or just blind chance. Why it is isn't really all that important to me. The fact is, it is that way (well, maybe not necessarily fact, but I'm willing to treat it as such).
Do we as a race have a purpose? Not my job to answer that. Frankly I don't really care that much. I walk my path. Hopefully by doing so, I help others walk their path, which could and in fact is almost required to be quite different from my own. I can't fly, I can't know the secrets of the universe or the ultimate reality, and I can't know if this is or what the overall purpose to human existence is. Frankly, these inabilities don't both me much. Even if I knew the "human purpose", if it violated my path, I'd still choose my path over it.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I am personally interested in the answer to the question. That seems more productive than the casual denunciation of those you don't understand.
---------
I can't say exactly what I would do with a non-deist perspective, but I can try to imagine. My take on it can best be summed up with a quote from Tagore:
"It is the privilege of man to work for fruits beyond his immediate reach, and to adjust his life not in slavish conformity to the examples of some present success, or even to his own prudent past, limited in its aspiration, but to an infinite future bearing in its heart the ideals of our higher expectations."
Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
quote:I am personally interested in the answer to the question.
Which is one of the things that make you as cool as you are.
-----
My personal take on this is that things are as they are because they just happened to come out that way. Which is not to say that everything is accidental -- we don't have flying elephants or perpetual motion machines for a reason. But within the space of possibility (a very, very large space) what we experience is only one point. Things are complex. Even very simple rules produce strange, unpredictable behavior when repeated many times (Wolfram, anyone?). Life as we know it, and humans, and human morality are results of the process of the universe.
Whether or not there is an overseer to the whole thing seems (at least to me) irrelevant. Others will disagree.
That's my general view, anyway. On a more personal level I tend to wonder about why the survival of humanity feels important to me. Actually, in recent years I've started caring a little less about humanity as a whole, but I'm still conscious of the resources I consume and I still pay attention to the "big" things, like the impending energy crisis that may or may not actually materialize. But if humanity will certainly perish before the heat death of the universe, why should I care if the sun engulfs the planet or if we're struck by an asteroid or if we blow ourselves up in a nuclear holocaust? I honestly don't know.
I suspect it has something to do with what OSC touched on with his hierarchy of familiarity. On some level I must consider humanity to be my family. Maybe it was too much Asimov when I was growing up. I was smitten by the zeroth law.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:MrSquicky said: It's not the religious beliefs themselves that logically suggest this worldview, but rather the often repeated characterization of people who don't believe in God as necessarily devoid of morals. When people assume that athiests are necesarily monsters, what they are really saying is that they believe that without the external restraints placed on them, they'd be monsters. In fact, at one point or another while we were dicussing this, I quoted a post from someone who said almost exactly this.
Which makes me wonder why you responded the way you did. Chaz asked a question – you chose to interpret as requiring an insulting reply, but your “flip-side” questions don’t mirror his original question. He asks, “What’s the point of being good without God.” This is an opportunity to explain. The idea that people require God to be good does not imply that people “wouldn't do the right thing if some outside force wasn't making you.” This is the utterly frustrating part about whatever your thesis is about “mature religion.”
quote:MrSquicky said: Look, I can argue this from the traditional religious viewpoint, and I think it has some validity. I can argue it from probably about 6 or so other viewpoints that I also think have validity. I'm trying to get at a couple of points here.
First, the views that I'm arguing likewise have validity to them. There is a strong current of parent/authority worship in religion. It is not in fact free from the human weaknesses that plauge every other aspect of human existence (I'd argue it's more vulnerable than most). There are a lot of people whose moral development is stunted because they believe that said moral development is impossible. etc., etc. etc. What I'm saying is accurate in many cases. You've come back with, "Well, it's not true in all cases, so you're completely wrong." I'm playing the 80/20 game and you're playing either/or,
And here’s where you enter the world of speculation, especially with regard to this supposed 80/20 ratio. Based on your characterizations of the beliefs I and many other people hold, I can only conclude your speculation is based on a faulty understanding of what deity-based moral systems actually mean.
quote:MrSquicky said: edit: Or to add, this is why we see the truncated form of Pascal's Wager so often. That is, you should follow God because if he exits, you go to heaven if you follow him and hell if you don't, but if he doesn't exist, then at most you've just wasted a little bit of time. end edit.
But how often do we really see this? I think Pascal’s wager is largely a tool used by drunk philosophy students and people over-simplifying religion (which can be proponents as well as opponents.)
quote:MrSquicky said: Second, I can argue this from at least 5 angles, probably more. Can you argue it from 2?
I can probably argue it from 20. But you’re not arguing from 5 angles. You’ve consistently stated an opinion of religion that is based on a consistent misunderstanding of it.
For example, I’ve never seen you even acknowledge the possibility that the monotheistic tradition is in some sense factually accurate (that is, that there is a single Creator responsible not only for the existence of the world but also for its ethical and moral framework, that humans used to have direct knowledge of this but somehow lost it through there own actions, and that moral and ethical philosophy since then has been based on the remaining echo of that knowledge.) In this scenario, even the ethical knowledge understandings of diehard atheists would reflect the morality of the Creator. Maybe this is true, maybe it’s not. But it is one logical way to address the potential argument that the existence of ethical and moral atheists/agnostics/etc. demonstrate the inaccuracy of the core monotheistic tradition.
Don’t pretend you’re just trying to express a variety of ways of looking at this issue. You’ve had a consistent, central thesis you’ve been advocating based on your own viewpoint and assumptions. Which is fine, such discussions are one of the reasons the board exists. But please don’t pretend you have some unique inner knowledge of what constitutes a mature or immature belief system.
quote:MrSquicky said: I don't mind so much if people understand the viewpoint I'm putting out there and decide that it doesn't work for them. What I'm specifically taking issue with is that, by the way they frame the question, they show that don't believe such a viewpoint (or any viewpoint that doesn't conform to their basic assumptions) even exists. Or perhaps that it does exist, but it is not worth an ounce of respect or an attempt at understanding.
He asked a question. From the way he asked it, it’s clear he doesn’t understand how it’s possible. Here’s an opportunity to state how it’s possible.
quote:MrSquicky said: I wasn't trying to be tolerant or completely accurate with my response. I was trying to make these points. I don't acutally believe in the same way I wrote. I think that the insulting way I posted my objections does a pretty good job of mirroring the way our cultural assumptions insults others. If you accept that you are as insulting as you felt I was being, if you understand the reason why you felt insulted, I think you'll go a long way towards overcoming your blindness in this matter.
So seeking the opinions of others is blindness? Asking people the source of their ethical beliefs is as insulting as outright telling them that they are morally stunted?
And the fact remains, even in posts where you’re not trying to be extreme for effect, you’ve shown that you don’t understand the concept of a morality derived from a deity. Chaz doesn’t understand the opposite. If there’s blindness here, it’s at least mutual.
Dagonee
Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
Okay, okay, okay, can we just talk about the question, please? Let's drop this whole "I'm insulted" thing and get into the more interesting stuff. Really now.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Well, I'll confess that a belief in God probably is all that keeps me from running around robbing banks."
See, I doubt this. I keep hearing this from religious people, but NONE of the areligious people I know feel this way. Must we assume that religious people have a less-evolved moral fiber, or simply that they don't actually recognize the source of their own morality?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
*shrug* the question is silly, for all that its plagued philosophers for ages. No matter what "cause" you suppose for morality/humanity, there's always the question: what cause the cause?
One can say: well, God is the source of our purpose and our morality. But whence God? Who causes God? Well, if one says nobody causes God, then we have the same conundrum we get from just saying "morals and purpose just are". Its not any better or worse, it just comes down to which one you believe.
Now, its also perfectly possible to have a logical moral system without believing in any absolute morals, lots of people do it. They just try to do things which make them happy (at least, that's the most common goal of choice). Not because its "right", but because they like feeling happy. What need for purpose, then, particularly if you think that without life you will not feel happy, but will rather feel nothing at all?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Oh, and it was my impression that in the LDS belief system God was not the source of morals, but merely a perfect follower of an absolute moral system that just is. This puzzles me in conjunction with some of the posts in this thread, but I could very well be wrong.
Posted by Space Opera (Member # 6504) on :
I think it's a really interesting question. I can't answer for everyone, obviously, so I'll just answer for me. I'm an agnostic, which basically means I'm still trying to figure things out. This means, of course, that I can't look forward to a reward in Heaven because I don't know if there is one.
I've found purpose in having a family and being a contributing member of society. It doesn't make me feel less purposeful b/c I don't know for sure about God. When bad things happen, I attribute it to life, which is unpredictable and often intelligible. I look for beauty in the world around me, and feel like I'm fulfilling *something* (don't know if it's purpose or not) when I take the time to notice and appreciate it.
Though I don't feel strongly connected to a religion, I do feel strongly connected to the planet I live on and the people I share it with. My sense of right and wrong comes from my heart, and sometimes my gut. I respect and treat others kindly, including animals. I respect laws because I know that (most of the time) they work to keep society safe due to the fact that some people have no sense of right and wrong. That for me is the big quandry - why are some people bad? I've never understood that.
space opera
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
To sum up what has been said so far concerning the question of Why a Moral Code:
Bok: "I think it's basically a "live like a weed, live like flower" proposition. You should live, but being mindful of others, that you don't tread too harshly on their turf."
Elphie: "As for moral code and such, I believe that each human being is born with their own innate sense of what is right or wrong for them...However, on a grander scale, I believe there is no "right or wrong", but only relativity. Each experience, regardless if it is deemed Bad or Good is an experience nonetheless and therefore, in my mind, is worth it. "
Telp: "For myself, I follow a moral code because I recognize that every human and all matter are made of the same things and are all related. Each individual is a wave in an ocean, individual, but connected to each other and all Creation. For example, to kill another human would be to kill a part of myself."
Squicky: "While people have a lot of creative latitude over the type of world they live in, I think that there are also many things held constant, among them the requirements for health. The way the waorld and people are constituted, I think that they are both quantitative and qualitively better if they live this way. This could be the result of a divine plan, human choice, evolution, or just blind chance. Why it is isn't really all that important to me. The fact is, it is that way (well, maybe not necessarily fact, but I'm willing to treat it as such)."
Mike: "On some level I must consider humanity to be my family...morality is what works. With the additional caveat that most of morality is probably unconscious, and heavily influenced by our genetics."
-----
Telp and Mike seem to have the same idea: The moral code usually governs how we treat one another, and how we act matters because we are all connected.
Squick seems to rely on the efficacy of behaviors - acting morally matters because it works. He's not questioning why it works, believing the answer to be unknowable, but is acting as if it does, and his experiences are bearing this out.
Is this an accurate summary? I would be most interested in some elaboration.
[ June 02, 2004, 04:26 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
Note that what I said was a little stronger than "morals and purpose just are". There are real, understandable causes behind why we have morals. I do not speculate on the causes behind the causes.
Also, I think you'll find that for most people happiness is not the only thing on their list or reasons they do things. High on the list, perhaps, but certainly not the only thing. We tend to be a little more complex than that. Besides, morality is mostly an unconscious process, so rationalizations of moral relativists (or anyone else, IMHO) tend to be just rationalizations.
I think the question is not silly, so there. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Okay, okay, okay, can we just talk about the question, please? Let's drop this whole "I'm insulted" thing and get into the more interesting stuff. Really now.
If you think this exchange has been about "I'm insulted" then you didn't pay attention.
quote:See, I doubt this. I keep hearing this from religious people, but NONE of the areligious people I know feel this way. Must we assume that religious people have a less-evolved moral fiber, or simply that they don't actually recognize the source of their own morality?
That question can be turned around to suggest that areligious people are not aware that their moral and ethical beliefs come from God.
Which is why in at least one important respect fugu's right: the question is silly. The fact that most atheists have ethics doesn't prove that they're fooling themselves about the existence of God, nor does the existence of ethical atheists prove that all morality does not derive from God.
In other words, the underlying difference of opinion is not about to be solved on this board because we're considering this question.
Dagonee
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Oh, and it was my impression that in the LDS belief system God was not the source of morals, but merely a perfect follower of an absolute moral system that just is. This puzzles me in conjunction with some of the posts in this thread, but I could very well be wrong.
If this is true (I'm not overly familiar with LDS beliefs), the fact that God is a perfect follower of this system is what enabled him to reveal this moral code to human beings, and thus morality could still be said to come from God. This is very much not my own belief, so this is only one possible way to reconcile your statement with others in this thread.
Dagonee
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:This puzzles me in conjunction with some of the posts in this thread, but I could very well be wrong.
I'd say your quote is quite accurate. Where does the puzzlement come from?
Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
[edit: this is in response to kat's synopses above.]
Kat, that's actually more a personal view of mine, one that probably isn't extremely common. Not that it doesn't have an effect, it just doesn't seem to be the primary cause of morality. Mine is much closer to your synopsis of Squick's view -- that morality is what works. With the additional caveat that most of morality is probably unconscious, and heavily influenced by our genetics. (But please, let's not debark on the nature vs nuture argument.)
[ June 02, 2004, 04:10 PM: Message edited by: Mike ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Kat, i think the puzzlement is that if God didn't make the moral code, why is His existence necessary for a moral code to exist?
Dagonee
[ June 02, 2004, 04:09 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:Also, I think you'll find that for most people happiness is not the only thing on their list or reasons they do things. High on the list, perhaps, but certainly not the only thing
depends on how you define happiness. you might do things to make someone else happy. Or out of a sense of responsibility. Or fear of alternative consequences. But most of those still boil down to happiness. you help someone out so they feel good, in turn making you feel good about what you've done. you do things out of a sense of obligation to someone else, because not doing it would make them unhappy or sad or hurt, thus making you feel like you let them down and causing you to not feel happy. etc...I don't think fugu solely meant immediate personaly happyness.
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
quote:The idea that people require God to be good does not imply that people “wouldn't do the right thing if some outside force wasn't making you.”
I'm having a bit of trouble with this.
"People require God to be good" is the same as saying "If people are good, then there is a God." i.e. A -> B where A = goodness and B = God. The contrapositive of a statement is equivalent to the statement, i.e. not B -> not A is equivalent to A -> B. Therefore, if "People require God to be good" = "If people are good, then there is a God" and "people wouldn't do the right thing if some outside force wasn't making them" = "if there is no God then people will not be good" then logically "People require God to be good" = "people wouldn't do the right thing if some outside force wasn't making them." Where's the flaw?
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I pick robbing banks because I hear it's essentially a victimless crime. Sure there is some social cost, but I'd put it on a par with choosing to smoke, or eat sugar for that matter. I doubt I would get more than 10,000 dollars from any one bank, assuming I only get the contents of one teller's drawer. Folks who get degenerative diseases and have to receive expensive treatments probably run far past their premium payments in excess of that.
But I guess I'm already doing the same thing in not carrying health insurance, and should I need treatment I would probably have to get Medicaid. Since I probably could earn enough if I were to work, but not working am I making a choice to despoil society of potential medical expenses? By sitting here posting on hatrack (being sedentary) am I not also courting obesity?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Because then why should the question puzzle LDS members -- they already have it answered just as many people who don't believe in God do -- because that's the way it is. Those other people just don't believe in any perfect follower of the moral system, aka God.
Posted by Chaz_King (Member # 3184) on :
First, let me explain something about me.
I do no know if there is a God because I have never met God. I do not know if there is an inherent belief system, but I follow a fairly strict moral code that I think is right because of my respect for the people around me because I am fairly empathetic to those people, and I can understand the emotional impact of my actions no matter how subtle.
So yes, I do understand how someone can have a moral belief system other than anarchy or survival of the fittest without a "higher being" to punish you.
I understand squick is using "you" in a general sense, and not directing it at anyone unless what he says actually implies to that person.
The original question...
quote: In a world devoid of concrete evidence of any kind of supreme being, what is the point to life, and if there is no point other than just being, then why follow any type of moral code, or why not just throw yourself off of a cliff and skip all the agony and pain you are bound to encounter?
(yes I did just quote myself )
was asked to see why you believe a.)people have a purpose or b.)if they don't, then why you believe the should or should not have a moral code. The pretext of not having evidence of a supreme being was in order to weed out religious answers for a person's purpose.
Unfortunately the last part was phrased a bit melo-drammtically, and let you believe I was under the impression that atheists or otherwise not religiously motivated people couldn't possibly have a sense of morals.
That is not how it was intended, so please do not take offense, and since squicky has answered why he believes people should behave moraly in that context, he has answered his question his way.
I am not so much concerned with the religious beliefs or lack there of, as I am with seeing the many varied reasons why people (you forum people) believe we should have morals without a religious context to push them.
And not one of you has really said we shouldn't have those morals and that it is fine to go jump off a cliff .
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Robbing banks a victimless crime? A nonviolent crime it can be, but never victimless.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
saxon75,
The difference is that someone requiring God go be good doesn't meant the same thing as God forces someone to be good.
For example, I require water to live. Water does not force me to live - I get to choose if I drink it.
Dagonee
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
The answers to the question are interesting because of what the answers reveal about humanity. I don't think that people sitting around discussing the moral absolutes of the universe will get anything close to the truth about it, although I do think such moral absolutes exist. I do, however, think that the more you know of people, and their stories, and what resonates inside souls, the more you can glean of the nature of humanity.
In other words, the moral code is not a solvable mystery. Humanity is.
My beliefs come in where I believe that we CAN know some of those absolute truths, but the knowledge comes from God through the Holy Ghost, sometimes through prophets, and it comes as a gift.
[ June 02, 2004, 04:16 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Space Opera (Member # 6504) on :
I couldn't rob banks. It might be a victimless crime, but still it's taking something that doesn't belong to me. However, Pooka, that doesn't mean that I wouldn't cheer on your escape when it aired on the evening news.
space opera
Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
quote:Which is why in at least one important respect fugu's right: the question is silly. The fact that most atheists have ethics doesn't prove that they're fooling themselves about the existence of God, nor does the existence of ethical atheists prove that all morality does not derive from God.
The question is silly in the sense that we're probably not going to change anyone's mind here. The question is not silly, however, if it was intended as a way to learn about how atheists or agnostics can have a moral code.
-----
We have three (or more, perhaps) options here: (1) God created a moral code that we humans should try to follow, (2) humans evolved moral behavior along with the other aspects that make us human, or (3) both are true. It does no good to categorically deny the possibility of any of these options, unless somehow we obtain further evidence. (This is not to say that there's anything wrong with seeing one or more of these options as extremely unlikely.)
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Mike, I would add "(4) The moral code exists as an absolute, and God communicates it to us" as another option.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Mike: That would be the sense in which the question is not silly. Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Can any crime be victimless?
...and I don't rob banks because I figure I'll get caught when I trip over my own feet on my way out the door.
Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
Kat: indeed, I am probably missing a number of other options as well.
Wow, people post fast sometimes.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Maybe there's "(5) The laws that create a working moral code are intrinsic to our universe the same way Newton's, Einstein's, and string theory's are." as well?
Posted by Chaz_King (Member # 3184) on :
Well, if you consider survival and procreation to be basic motivations, then you would think that as a group a moral code would develop in order to ensure those motivations are met. You don't hurt the people around you because on some level you depend on them.
At a more than basic level of motivation, is our emotional reactions to one another. You don't hurt the people around you because you know what it feels like to be hurt and you don't want them to feel that way.
Perhaps people created a moral code once the first civilization was created just because they knew there were "unbalanced" individuals with no regard for anyone around them or the stable community, and the civilization had to have logical reasons set in stone for not hurting each other...
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Dag,
quote: I’ve never seen you even acknowledge the possibility that the monotheistic tradition is in some sense factually accurate
Then you really haven't been paying attention to what I've been saying. As I've said countless times when it comes to spiritual matters, at least a couple of times directly to you, it's not my job or within my power to judge the validity of people's spirituality. I have multiple times freely admitted that people's religious convictions can be wildly different - even directly opposite - to mine and still be true.
In fact, this very issue has come up before, with you trying to cast me into the someone saying that "All religion is just stupid." and me explaining why this is neither who I am nor what I'm saying. You're characterization of me is not just wrong, but also untenable in light of our past direct interactions. Go ahead, look back on them. I'm pretty confident that you'll see what I'm saying. Even in our initial disagreements of religion in the prejudice thread, I made my position clear that I thought that a large number of people were specifically betraying their religions by being prejudiced and not that religion was by its very nature demanding prejudice or immaturity.
I have been consistently critical of religion becuase I'm taking the role of the critic. That is, I'm specifically aiming at pointing out and offering alternatives to the weaknesses of religion. This doesn't mean that I don't understand it's strengths. As I've said multiple times, the ability to look critically at religion is both extremely important and largely lacking in this world of either apologists or superficial attackers. I try to fill that role with integrity.
I do believe that I'm pointing out genuine weaknesses in religion. As I said, this does not mean that I don't believe that it is without strengths. Again as I've said, I see you as denying that there are any weaknesses in religion because it also has strengths, as saying "That's not necessarily the case." and thinking that this is grounds for dismissing my criticisms. I am freely capable and have in fact admitted that religion has both actual and possible strengths. However, to turn it around, it's been very rare that you've ever admitted that one of my criticisms has any validity at all.
I am not ignorant of what I'm talking about. I grew up just as Catholic as you did. Just because my experiences suggest things that you don't want to believe doesn't mean that they are invalid. I think I've adequtely demonstrated that I do in fact have a pretty good grasp of othrodox christianity. And, as to bringing a unique perspective to this issue, in the bounds of this board, I think that it's obvious that I do.
I honestly don't know what you expect me to do. My posts are already among the longest and most detailed on the board. I do push consistent theses, and, if you notice, they are at least sometimes ones that many people wouldn't consider if I didn't bring them up. Would you like me to not only present my divergent ideas, but also the more mainstream beliefs that I am putting them in opposition to? There's no need for me to go into detail about the strengths of religion. On this board and in this culture, that's part of the sea that swim in. What is generally lacking is what I try to provide, that is an intelligent and responsible analysis of the weaknesses of religion. Perhaps you don't agree that my analysis is either intelligent or responsible, but to discount it based on what you think you know about what I understand, is to me pretty poor thinking.
The way I see it, you've largely been either addressing the person as opposed to ideas or dicounting my criticisms for inadequte reasons. I've no problem with you disagreeing with (in fact I welcome it) but I hope for better disagreement than this.
edit: Sometime it seems to me that I'll say something like "This aspect of Christianity can make people take people who are of a different religion and torture them." and you'll come back with "You don't understand Christianity. That would never happen." Like with the Pascal's Wager thing. Maybe you've just not seen it, but that's a reasonably common thing to pop up on this board. I'm willing to bet that even the religious members of the board are willing to agree to that.
[ June 02, 2004, 04:54 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by Space Opera (Member # 6504) on :
Chaz King,
I think this is a great discussion. But now I'm getting confused. Are we wondering now why civilization exists? i.e. Hobbes and Locke
space opera
Posted by Chaz_King (Member # 3184) on :
more of why morals exist or why they should be followed in society even without a religious context.
Among the other points in leviathan they also stated that you followed the moral codes of society because if you didn't then society would fall apart.
Which applies in this discussion because it is another explanation of why someone would follow a moral code outside of a religion. It also fits Kat's review of Squick's idea:
quote: Squick seems to rely on the efficacy of behaviors - acting morally matters because it works. He's not questioning why it works, believing the answer to be unknowable, but is acting as if it does, and his experiences are bearing this out
But I think the answer is knowable in that context in that acting morally matters because it works to hold society together and therefore helps ensure that your group will exist for a longer period of time.
I am sorry if I confuse people in my posts, I tend to write my ideas, but forget to post what they are in relation to . Perhaps I should try to get better at that
[ June 02, 2004, 05:05 PM: Message edited by: Chaz_King ]
Posted by Space Opera (Member # 6504) on :
Thanks, but doesn't the question still boil down to Hobbes and Locke? I could be wrong; it's been awhile since polysci. Either way, I think I said my thoughts in my post on page 1.
space opera
edit: I don't think you confuse people; I'm just a slooooow thinker
[ June 02, 2004, 05:10 PM: Message edited by: Space Opera ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote: Then you really haven't been paying attention to what I've been saying. As I've said countless times when it comes to spiritual matters, at least a couple of times directly to you, it's not my job or within my power to judge the validity of people's spirituality. I have multiple times freely admitted that people's religious convictions can be wildly different - even directly opposite - to mine and still be true.
That’s not the point I was making with that statement. The point was that you’re claim to be the one seeing this from more angles than others isn’t true, and I pointed out one angle you have never addressed (the angle needs the whole paragraph to be complete).
quote: In fact, this very issue has come up before, with you trying to cast me into the someone saying that "All religion is just stupid."
No. That is my whole point – I’ve never tried to cast you in that role, yet you’ve interpreted my responses to you that way.
quote: Would you like me to not only present my divergent ideas, but also the more mainstream beliefs that I am putting them in opposition to? There's no need for me to go into detail about the strengths of religion. On this board and in this culture, that's part of the sea that swim in. What is generally lacking is what I try to provide, that is an intelligent and responsible analysis of the weaknesses of religion. Perhaps you don't agree that my analysis is either intelligent or responsible, but to discount it based on what you think you know about what I understand, is to me pretty poor thinking.
The way I see it, you've largely been either addressing the person as opposed to ideas or dicounting my criticisms for inadequte reasons. I've no problem with you disagreeing with (in fact I welcome it) but I hope for better disagreement than this.
It’s not that you need to present those arguments, it’s that you need to demonstrate you understand them and, to my mind, you don’t. You’re criticisms are generally aimed at two aspects of religion: an excess emphasis on moral rules and some implication that humans need to be scared into acting good.
The first area is an issue across many denominations. My problem with your opinion there has been your insistence that somehow mentioning the behavioral aspects of morality is incompatible with the underlying message of love in Christianity. You have been the one forcing an either/or choice with regards to this issue, though not in this thread.
The second is just a flat out mischaracterization of Christian doctrine. Even the most hellfire and brimstone sermonizing preacher doesn’t hold this as a central belief. It’s not that neither criticism can be legitimately leveled at various denominations, usually in varying degrees. It’s that in your zeal to provide “an intelligent and responsible analysis of the weaknesses of religion” you overemphasize the importance of doctrines within Christianity and provide a highly distorted view of the overall structure of Christian beliefs.
I’m not discounting your criticisms for inadequate reasons – I’m saying, as I’ve said over and over again, the way you characterize the beliefs of Christians, specifically, is flat out wrong. The ongoing implication that a parental relationship with God is somehow negative is just not reflective of the many Christians I know of many denominations.
My responses to your posts in this thread are aimed at the hubris underlying your posts, which was particularly evident today.
It’s one thing to point out the inconsistencies within Christian doctrine, to point out examples of Christian’s not living up to their professed faith, or to just present arguments as to why you think Christian belief is wrong. It’s quite another to decide that you have found the core problem with a set of beliefs you no longer hold and provide advise to the believers on how to fix it, especially when your descriptions of this core problem do not demonstrate an understanding of the entirety of the beliefs.
quote: edit: Sometime it seems to me that I'll say something like "This aspect of Christianity can make people take people who are of a different religion and torture them." and you'll come back with "You don't understand Christianity. That would never happen." Like with the Pascal's Wager thing. Maybe you've just not seen it, but that's a reasonably common thing to pop up on this board. I'm willing to bet that even the religious members of the board are willing to agree to that.
No. What I say is that it is not an aspect of Christianity that caused them to torture people of different religions. Rather, it is a failing on their part to live up to their faith that causes them to torture people of different religions.
Edit: I didn’t say Pascal’s wager wasn’t used an argument that came up. I said it wasn’t used often, and when it did it represented an oversimplification of Christian beliefs. Even if the first isn’t true (and it’s a relative perception, anyway), the second clearly is. The point is that you use the incomplete Pascal’s wager to demonstrate a problem with Christianity when the wager isn’t really Christianity.
Dagonee
[ June 02, 2004, 05:17 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Yes, yes, that's exactly it. I wll trace out exactly what parts of the structure or content of Christian I belief encouraged that action and, while you accept that these are part of Christianity and are extremely willing to claim their good effects, you are unwilling to accept that they have bad ones as well. By your definition, anyone who does something you don't agree with was by deafult not Christian, even if they were doing so in complete accordance with, say the Catholic Church at the time. As a consequence, we don't need to worry about the same trends in the Catholic Church today, because while it may have done some awful things in the past, it is now perfect. My point is that the abuses committed by Christians were in large part facilitated by the structure and content of their beliefs, and that these same things cause similar behavior in other, non-Christian systems. You deny that this has any effect, that the dominent theme of these people's lives were not responsible for their actions. And you offer up no evidence other than your say so to back this claim. I think I'm looking at the totality of the belief system and showing where there are bad points. You seem to be saying that because I see bad points, I'm not actually understanding the system.
Edit: And a large part of it is that we define Christianity differntly. I see it as the totality of the belief systems of the people who hold it, and you seem to see it as a Platonic form that only a few people actually live up to. When someone who self-identifies as Christian and is identified by other people, espcially other Christians, as Christian uses the truncated Pascal's Wager, then this is likely part of Christianity for me. When a whole bunch of self-identifying Christians use it or similar things and when well nigh the entire culture and history of Christians tell me that because I don't believe in God, I'm necessarily immoral, then, yes, I consider this an aspect of Christianity. I wonder how many people you would actually consider to be Christian.
[ June 02, 2004, 05:26 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
That actually explains a lot - You do not separate the ideals and the pattern from the people who are attempting (with varying degrees of effort and success) to follow the pattern.
To understand religion, then you should. There's a very basic difference. The gospel is perfect; people aren't.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
That's the PURPOSE of religion - to help people become better. It comes back to why would God hand out a moral code - because people do an indifferent job of figuring it out on their own.
To fall on cliches, churches and religions are not museums of perfect people but hospitals for those trying to get better.
quote:I wonder how many people you would actually consider to be Christian.
Everyone who is sincerely trying to follow Christ. How many are a perfect example of a Christian? None. That's the point.
[ June 02, 2004, 05:38 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Yes, yes, that's exactly it. I wll trace out exactly what parts of the structure or content of Christian I belief encouraged that action and, while you accept that these are part of Christianity and are extremely willing to claim their good effects, you are unwilling to accept that they have bad ones as well.
It depends on what you mean. Since I believe every sinful action can be traced to some aspect of good, and every type of good can be perverted into evil, I’d go even farther than you and say EVERY aspect of the Christian faith could be perverted somehow and that perversion used to justify evil. So singling one aspect out doesn’t make sense to me.
But, that doesn’t mean that those aspects of the Christian belief have bad effects. It means that humans are capable of perverting even true expressions of their faith as justifications for sinful ends.
quote:By your definition, anyone who does something you don't agree with was by deafult not Christian, even if they were doing so in complete accordance with, say the Catholic Church at the time.
There you go. I've never said anything remotely like this. I've said that when Christians use their faith to justify a bad action, they are misunderstanding their faith. That’s VERY different.
quote:As a consequence, we don't need to worry about the same trends in the Catholic Church today, because while it may have done some awful things in the past, it is now perfect.
Never said that either. Nothing close to it.
quote:My point is that the abuses committed by Christians were in large part facilitated by the structure and content of their beliefs, and that these same things cause similar behavior in other, non-Christian systems. You deny that this has any effect, that the dominent theme of these people's lives were not responsible for their actions.
The mere fact there’s no sin not committed by Christians, and no sin committed by them that has not been committed by others (except maybe heresy and apostasy, which are definitionally limited) is fairly good proof that it’s not Christianity that causes these actions, but rather some intrinsic failing of human beings. I’m saying that even Christianity as interpreted by humans is not immune to these failings.
quote:And you offer up no evidence other than your say so to back this claim. I think I'm looking at the totality of the belief system and showing where there are bad points. You seem to be saying that because I see bad points, I'm not actually understanding the system.
No, I’m saying that the things you point out to be bad points are given exaggerated importance by you within that belief system. You’re not looking at the totality. This was most clear in the love/rules dichotomy discussion, but is hinted at in all your posts on this subject.
Here’s an example: Overemphasis on rules of sexual morality can lead to repression (everything from the Scarlet Letter to gay bashing). I’m not arguing this. What I am saying is that this is no reason to discard these rules. It is a reason to look at the totality of Christian beliefs and say, “How do we reconcile these fairly strict rules with “Love thy neighbor” and “Judge not lest ye be judged.”
It’s when one fails to examine the totality of Christian belief that one either ends up using it to justify wrongful actions or inappropriately discarding an important piece of the belief system.
Dagonee
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Perfection is not a system nor a reality. I deal in both. If I point out problems with systems or reality and show that doing it another way avoids those problems, saying "Well that's because people aren't living up to perfection." doesn't really cut much ice with me.
Also, I've read the scriptures. You're going to have a hard time convincing me that they're perfect.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
The gospel. Not the scriptures.
So what, if anything, do you find perfect?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Edit: And a large part of it is that we define Christianity differntly. I see it as the totality of the belief systems of the people who hold it, and you seem to see it as a Platonic form that only a few people actually live up to. When someone who self-identifies as Christian and is identified by other people, espcially other Christians, as Christian uses the truncated Pascal's Wager, then this is likely part of Christianity for me. When a whole bunch of self-identifying Christians use it or similar things and when well nigh the entire culture and history of Christians tell me that because I don't believe in God, I'm necessarily immoral, then, yes, I consider this an aspect of Christianity.
No. See the end of my previous post. I see humans as imperfect, so naturally their expression of Christianity is imperfect. The fact that a whole bunch of self-identifying Christians (myself included) fail to live up to Christianity doesn’t justify picking and choosing those aspects of it that can’t be perverted to produce actions we don’t like. As I said before, there would be nothing left.
quote:I wonder how many people you would actually consider to be Christian.
Everyone who wants to be.
Dagonee
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I am using perfect in the etymological sense: complete in all the ways that are currently needed.
The gospel (not the scriptures) is complete, perfect in the sense of containing and explaining all that is currently necessary for us to become perfect ourselves. People are not - they fail, sometimes spectacularly and often in groups.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Perfection is not a system nor a reality. I deal in both. If I point out problems with systems or reality and show that doing it another way avoids those problems, saying "Well that's because people aren't living up to perfection." doesn't really cut much ice with me.
So people can't live up to system A, but they'll somehow be able to live up to system B?
Christianity expresses ideals to be sought after, and attained only with the help of Christ. Chopping off parts because they’re difficult to attain makes little sense within the Christian framework. So the changes you’re suggesting require people to deny Christianity as a whole to accept them. Life’s work or not, you’re probably not going to pull that off.
Dagonee
[ June 02, 2004, 05:52 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Chaz_King (Member # 3184) on :
quote: So people can't live up to system A, but they'll somehow be able to live up to system B?
I don't think he is commenting on living up to any system.
I think he is trying to say that certain parts of the system may not need to be present at all, or they should at least come with heavy disclaimers Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Dag, Let me clarify what I'm saying here because I don't think I've been doing a good job of getting it across. People who live under the Christian system have done and still do some awful things. If they lived under a different system, one that didn't include the aspects of Christianity that I'm criticizing, they wouldn't do these things (although they'd most likely do other bad things). If this is true, then they do these things in part because they are Christians.
In reference to the current discussion, aspects of the Christian religion or of any system that makes an appeal to an external absolute moral authority and includes elements of a reward/punishment structure can predictibly lead to people who do the right largely because they are consciously trying to earn divine rewards or, as per Pascal's Wager, get into heaven and avoid hell. As I pointed out before, this is even codified in one of the versions of the Catholic Acts of Contrition. Possible consequences of this situation is that they don't mature into a person who choose to do the right thing for its own sake and that they view people who don't acknowledge an external force as the basis for morality are necessarily going to be evil.
These are in fact hallmarks of at least some Christians as I have defined them. I'd argue that the view of athiests or other non-believers such as myself that I describes is the dominant on in contemporary Christiany culture and that it was obviously that of historical Christian culture. This provides a basis of comparison between the way I see things and the way that many self-identifying Christians see things.
Where is this analysis wrong?
edit: This is not to say that people shouldn't be Christian because of these possible bad influences. Such a result is certianly not what I'm looking for. Instead, they could acknowledge that the Christian system carries these weaknesses and thus try to overcome them. Many Christians do just that. Some others, fewer perhaps, avoid these potential pitfalls by their very character and never even need to know about them to not express them. However, many, many other Christians deny that their system has any potential holes and thus fall right into them while denying that they are there.
kat, My niece is perfect. Nothing else in human experience fits this description nor would I want it to.
[ June 02, 2004, 05:58 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
That's like saying that because the speed limit is 75 on the highway, some people still go 75 even when the conditions do not warrant it, we should obviously get rid of speed limits altogether.
quote:My niece is perfect.
Aww...
quote:Nothing else in human experience fits this description
*grin* That's the point.
quote:nor would I want it to.
I'm sure you have your own reasons for that.
[ June 02, 2004, 05:57 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:aspects of the Christian religion or of any system that makes an appeal to an external absolute moral authority and includes elements of a reward/punishment structure can predictibly lead to people who do the right largely because they are consciously trying to earn divine rewards or, as per Pascal's Wager, get into heaven and avoid hell.
Okay, here's where I both agree with what you said, and point out some elements that you don't take into account.
Everyone is at different levels of spiritual and moral development, and there's no magic pill for development. That's okay - as long as you're moving forward, that's what matters. It isn't a race.
The Lord knows this. He knows that everyone would be at different levels at different times, and if you examine the scriptures (and I'm including the BoM in this because there's just no way for me to discuss this without it.), there are all sorts of reasons given as incentives/motivations to obey God. Some scriptures do threaten fire and brimstone for those who don't. Others say that if you love him, keep his commandments. Others give the incentive as being neighborly. Other scriptures promise rewards. Others request obedience out of duty and nothing more - no promise of reward. Others give the big picture. There isn't one incentive given, and that completely makes sense. The Lord knows us, and he loves us, and whereever we are in moral development, there's an incentive given.
To say that because one incentive is given, that is the only or major incentive displays a lack of knowledge of the other scriptures. That's why the scriptures can change as you read them over and over - different things stand out at different times.
People are not at a moral development level because of the scriptures that promise/threaten reward or punishment, but instead some scriptures stand out because that's what they need at that time. Taking away those scriptures will not magically induce everyone to skip that level of moral development - it just means that when they are there, nothing is there to speak to them.
[ June 02, 2004, 06:13 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote: Let me clarify what I'm saying here because I don't think I've been doing a good job of getting it across. People who live under the Christian system have done and still do some awful things. If they lived under a different system, one that didn't include the aspects of Christianity that I'm criticizing, they wouldn't do these things (although they'd most likely do other bad things). If this is true, then they do these things in part because they are Christians.
I’m with you up to here. I would contend that the other bad things would lekely be of a similar or worse nature, assuming life circumstances were identical. But okay.
quote:In reference to the current discussion, aspects of the Christian religion or of any system that makes an appeal to an external absolute moral authority and includes elements of a reward/punishment structure can predictibly lead to people who do the right largely because they are consciously trying to earn divine rewards or, as per Pascal's Wager, get into heaven and avoid hell. As I pointed out before, this is even codified in one of the versions of the Catholic Acts of Contrition. Possible consequences of this situation is that they don't mature into a person who choose to do the right thing for its own sake and that they view people who don't acknowledge an external force as the basis for morality are necessarily going to be evil.
First, as I pointed out before, even that version of the Act of Contrition carries the fear of Hell as only one, and not the most important, of the reasons for “being good.” But that’s besides the point. The main point is that the type of person who fails to “mature into a person who choose[s] to do the right thing for its own sake” because of the presence of an absolute external moral authority and the existence of Hell is unlikely to mature absent that external authority.
If Christianity is in any way fundamentally correct, there is an external absolute moral authority and something that could be characterized as a reward/punishment system (although I wouldn’t). Therefore, no suggestion to remove or deemphasize those aspects of Christianity makes sense to someone who holds Christian beliefs. It would be factually inaccurate.
So, we are faced with a dilemma. Christians commit un-Christian acts or fail to mature into fully moral beings. They often justify these acts with or fail to push themselves to mature because of particular aspects of their faith. There are two choices: 1.) Change those aspects. 2.) Focus on the totality of the Christian faith and place those aspects back into their proper place in the Christian framework.
Choice 1 requires renunciation of their faith. Choice 2 requires a better understanding of their faith. Your calling for choice 1 as an alternative is where your analysis is wrong. IMHO.
Dagonee
[ June 02, 2004, 06:20 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Thing is that the theological definition of hell is total separation from God.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I know, but Squicky's talking about people's perception of Hell as a punishment/reason to be good, so that doesn't help me answer him.
Hell seen as a personally chosen separation from God, of course, does pretty much sweep away most of his objections about reward/punishment if all Christians viewed it that way.
Dagonee
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
If only.
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
Dag, Squick, I have to wonder how much resolution can come out of the two of you debating. I say this because are clearly, indeed admittedly, approaching the issue from very different perspectives.
If there is no God and religion is no more significant or "right" than any other system people have developed, then it stands to reason that by analyzing it in the way that Squick does, finding out what the social effects of religion are and what specific parts of religion produce "objectively" negative social effects, and attempting to change the system based on those findings makes sense.
If God does exist and religion is a codification of His will, then such analysis is not only pointless, it is possibly destructive, in that the Rules are what they are and attempting to change or ignore them is only going to hurt you in the long run.
I don't see how those two viewpoints can ever be reconciled. Not that understanding each others' viewpoints isn't valuable, and therefore communication and discussion is valuable. I'm just wondering whether debate is valuable, and, I suppose, whether this is a debate.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Yeah. If only.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: why not just throw yourself off of a cliff and skip all the agony and pain you are bound to encounter?
So far, I have Hostess cupcakes and sex.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
saxon, I don't agree with your statement. First, I don't think that the basis of our disagreement isn't metaphysical. We are talking about whether it's useful to apply social and historical analysis to religions, specifically Christianity and about what they tell us. If we were arguing about whether or not, the Inquisition, say, was part of God's plan, this would be a particullary different argument. Instead, I'm saying that the Inquisition came about in part because Christianity was structured the way it was and that it contains elements of that structure today and Dag is disagreeing with me. At least, that's how I see the situation. As long as we're talking about reasonably analyzeable data, I don't see how metaphysical differences matter. For instance, I left the Catholic Church for largely the same things that we're talking about here. At the time, I believed in the Christian religion, but felt that the Church was inconsistent with my understanding of Christianity. Well, not necessarily inconsistent, just flawed in ways I felt invalidated it for me. In his book, German Catholics and Hitler's Wars, devout Catholic and social scientist Gordon Zahn analyzed the role of you guessed it German Catholic during Hitler's wars and showed how he thought that elements of the Church's structure and doctrine influenced the German Catholics to ethusiastically support and participate in Hitler's wars.
Second, I didn't get into this because I expected a Hegelian dialetical result where my thesis would meet with Dag's antithesis and we'd leave with the same synthesis. I think it's a problem with Hatrack that this is how we see arguements. Instead, I pursued this argument for a variety of reasons. Most of which, at least, I hope are as true for Dag as they are for me.
First off, it's fun. I enjoy debating with people who can give me a run for my money. Dag certainly fits that bill.
Second, you've seen me in aggressive mode. That's only the start of the process. Afterwards, I do the integration thing. The reaching and thinking that both Dag and I did gave me material to form other creative ideas around. When I went back to work, which I'm unjustly taking a break from now, I found a wealth of new ideas available to me. These ideas were related to (sometimes only tangentially) what we were debating, but they certainly weren't centered on it.
Third, I said somewhere along here that I operate largely on the 80/20 rule. Another way to put that is that I'm less interested in whether an idea is true or not true than I am in how true is it, or rather how much confidence can I justify putting in it. For me, this is part of the way I resolve the contradiction of believing in both A and not-A.
Finally, I don't debate just for the participants of the debate, but also for the audience. I think that it's likely that at least a few people reading the interplay between Dag and I came to understand the issues we were talking about better. I realize, what with this being Hatrack, Dag as the defender of religion will officially "win" the debate, but I hope that at least a few people thought to themselves, "You know, I can see where Squicky's coming from, and it's not necessarily the depths of hell."
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote: saxon, I don't agree with your statement. First, I don't think that the basis of our disagreement isn't metaphysical. We are talking about whether it's useful to apply social and historical analysis to religions, specifically Christianity and about what they tell us. If we were arguing about whether or not, the Inquisition, say, was part of God's plan, this would be a particullary different argument. Instead, I'm saying that the Inquisition came about in part because Christianity was structured the way it was and that it contains elements of that structure today and Dag is disagreeing with me. At least, that's how I see the situation. As long as we're talking about reasonably analyzeable data, I don't see how metaphysical differences matter.
I’d say this is fair. I’m saying the Inquisition came about because the human flaws that tend toward that kind of behavior found their justification by perverting particular aspects of Christianity. In other words, Christianity was used to make OK the bad actions the perpetrators wanted to commit. I do think the ultimate resolution of this issue requires a resolution of the underlying metaphysical differences between us, but meaningful discussion doesn’t require this.
quote:Second, I didn't get into this because I expected a Hegelian dialetical result where my thesis would meet with Dag's antithesis and we'd leave with the same synthesis. I think it's a problem with Hatrack that this is how we see arguements. Instead, I pursued this argument for a variety of reasons. Most of which, at least, I hope are as true for Dag as they are for me.
Absolutely.
quote:First off, it's fun. I enjoy debating with people who can give me a run for my money. Dag certainly fits that bill.
And vice-versa.
quote:Second, you've seen me in aggressive mode. That's only the start of the process. Afterwards, I do the integration thing. The reaching and thinking that both Dag and I did gave me material to form other creative ideas around. When I went back to work, which I'm unjustly taking a break from now, I found a wealth of new ideas available to me. These ideas were related to (sometimes only tangentially) what we were debating, but they certainly weren't centered on it.
While this issue isn’t particularly relevant to my life’s work, it is relevant to the core underlying principles of my life. Discussions w/ Squick have definitely made my views on these matters much more precise and articulable, while at the same time causing me to rigorously reexamine them on occasion.
quote:Third, I said somewhere along here that I operate largely on the 80/20 rule. Another way to put that is that I'm less interested in whether an idea is true or not true than I am in how true is it, or rather how much confidence can I justify putting in it. For me, this is part of the way I resolve the contradiction of believing in both A and not-A.
Not quite the same with me, but I believe most moral philosophies contain reflections of the ultimate truth, and that none of them are perfect. So while I believe there are absolute truths, I believe most ideas expressed by humans have a degree of truth. However, I’m much more comfortable with the idea that A is true so not-A is not.
quote:Finally, I don't debate just for the participants of the debate, but also for the audience. I think that it's likely that at least a few people reading the interplay between Dag and I came to understand the issues we were talking about better. I realize, what with this being Hatrack, Dag as the defender of religion will officially "win" the debate, but I hope that at least a few people thought to themselves, "You know, I can see where Squicky's coming from, and it's not necessarily the depths of hell."
You know, I don’t think you’re coming from the depths of hell. I think moral self-examination is a holy thing. In fact, the only time I get really frustrated with you is when you say I’ve cast your argument as “Religion is stupid.”
But I’ve never approached this with the idea of converting Squick to my position (although if he wants to post, “You’re absolutely right about this, Dags” I won’t stop him). I’ve hoped the discussion have made him think as they’ve made me think, and been at least marginally interesting to other readers while making them think. There have been discussion where I’ve hoped to convert the person I’m debating – for example, the debate about the best way to try to convince opponents of homosexual civil marriage rights. This one is much more philosophical.
Pointless if viewed as an attempt to convert the other; fruitful if viewed as an attempt to make everyone, including ourselves, think.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
.![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
)