quote:I would like to ask a favor of the atheists and secular humanists who wonder how to approach us religious people. Please do not “accommodate” us. Please do not “confront” us. Instead, get to know us. Please do not presume to know us already. Get to know what Christianity really is, today, on the ground, in churches, in shelters, in food banks, in the slums and streets of our cities. And in so doing get to know some Christians. Not the ones of us whose theology you can tear apart in ten seconds, but the ones who make you think, who challenge you, who respect your point of view. Get to know some of us. And then, at some point, do the unthinkable: Take the risk of disbelieving—just for a moment and as a truly live option—the ideas you think hold you and your world together. Disbelieving is one of the most vitally important things people can do. Without disbelief there is no growth. To disbelieve is to live.
At this point, I would like to thank everyone here who engages in open discussion, and that have changed my world view in many different ways. And I look forward to many more of these discussions.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
While I am fundamentally sympathetic to the author's message, I must say that this statement --
quote:To say something is a myth is not to say it is false. Myth tells truths that are not expressible in discursive language. Myths can be true or false. A false myth, like a bad scientific idea, is quickly discarded because it does not speak the truth about the world. A true myth survives because it resonates deeply with lived human experience.
-- is at the root of the issue, and it's one with which most atheists I know will disagree. (I know I certainly do.) Myths do not tell truths that cannot be otherwise expressed; rather, myths tell lies in order to more easily frame things that are believed to be truths, but which are difficult to justify.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
quote:myths tell lies in order to more easily frame things that are believed to be truths, but which are difficult to justify.
I don't agree with this. Myths are stories about someone or something who may not have existed, but their messages and meanings may be true statements about humanity, or culture, or whatever.
I don't think that myths tell lies anymore than any fiction story lies. And good fiction, like good myths, can form cornerstones in a culture or in someone's beliefs because they contain some sort of truth.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
Reading about how he abandoned the belief in Adam and Eve makes me sad. He describes the relief of getting past cognitive dissonance quite well ("all at once I understood and it felt great").
Sure, one way to deal with the cognitive dissonance caused by ridiculous religious belief is to discard the portions of it that you simply can't swallow. I'd suggest to him that chucking the whole thing would have been the more rational approach. Doesn't he wonder what else he's swallowed that is similarly false?
quote:Not the ones of us whose theology you can tear apart in ten seconds
I think he is deceiving himself if he thinks that his brand of Christianity doesn't fall in this group.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
quote:And, as a pastor friend once told me: One’s theology is basically a question of what holes one can live with.
The Adam and Eve hole he couldn't live with. Other holes (or non-holes, depending) he apparently is fine with.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
And that doesn't strike you as being an insane way to form your beliefs? Just believe everything that you can convince yourself of, then discard the rest?
Posted by Rawrain (Member # 12414) on :
Considering there is no historical proof to the existance of Jesus or Moses or any of the 13 disciples, I am proudly an atheists and despise the idea that these people are taught in school to be existing figures outside the elabrant mythological stories of the Bibles.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
Of course not. As the author grew older, a thing that he perceived as truth transformed into a hole. He dropped that belief and moved on. Who doesn't do that?
What one perceives as a hole is very subjective. Things that you see as holes in "his brand of Christianity" may not be holes to him at all. Certain things (e.g. evolution, geological history) are evidence that (in my mind) clearly point out some holes in some Christians' beliefs. I'm willing to argue with them about these points. Other things that I perceive as holes (e.g. the comfort religion provides some people) I'm not willing to argue with.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:Of course not. As the author grew older, a thing that he perceived as truth transformed into a hole. He dropped that belief and moved on. Who doesn't do that?
When the belief that turned into a hole was one his parents or clergy told him was the truth, that makes me fundamentally sad.
I understand that the essay had an uplifting effect on you, but for me it was very frustrating to read.
Edit: Not having had a religious upbringing, the only comparable things I can think of are things my teachers taught me that were merely simplifications, like the Bohr model of the atom or that the Civil War was "about slavery". Even then most teachers are careful to explain that it is a useful model and not meant to be the truth.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
In what way? You wish his parents taught him a system of belief that exactly matches yours?
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
[Missed your edit]
What if his parents and teachers truly believed these things? Are you upset at the system, his parents, teachers, or him?
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:In what way? You wish his parents taught him a system of belief that exactly matches yours?
How about one just one that is based on evidence instead of ancient myth?
Posted by Rawrain (Member # 12414) on :
My girlfriend was raised believing that everything in the big book was real and will happen (eventually), she was baptised and anointed and all them good things associated with it. And despite the fact her mother and grandmother claim to live life by the big book both of them (expecially her mother) are increadibly hipocritious(spelling???) and her mother is concerned she is going to hell for dating me XD and my girlfriend believed her.
Hell has never been proven to exist, and even worse than eternal damnation is being secluded forever by yourself, to lose your sanity in the vast blackness of alone.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote: What if his parents and teachers truly believed these things? Are you upset at the system, his parents, teachers, or him?
In that case I am upset with the people who taught the teachers. Of course this chain of blame goes all the way back to the stone age.
So mostly I am frustrated with human nature. That people (in general) are so conditioned to accept what their parents (and other authorities) tell them as being true, and then their tendency to pass the beliefs onto their children for a whole new cycle of irrational thought.
Posted by Rawrain (Member # 12414) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xavier: [QUOTE] So mostly I am frustrated with human nature. That people (in general) are so conditioned to accept what their parents (and other authorities) tell them as being true, and then their tendency to pass the beliefs onto their children for a whole new cycle of irrational thought.
Actually I am an acception to your rule, and my children will be raised not to accept social standings and become sheep like everyone else I know, of course this would make them quite different in the eyes of everyone else.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:Actually I am an acception [sic] to your rule, and my children will be raised not to accept social standings and become sheep like everyone else I know, of course this would make them quite different in the eyes of everyone else.
Yes, I'm aware that there are exceptions .
Added: Also, in my infinite regression of blame, I should note that at some point the teachers are relatively blameless, as at the time no other logic explanations existed for the phenomenon they perceived. The sun being a powerful deity being driven across the sky on a chariot is a fairly rational explanation if you don't know anything about nuclear fusion or gravity.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xavier: So mostly I am frustrated with human nature.
And what are you going to do with your frustration? How are you going to make things better? I feel like the way the author approaches this type of discussion is exactly what we need.
Posted by shadowland (Member # 12366) on :
I do agree with the sentiment of the final paragraph:
quote:Please don’t think that I am making this proposal in order to convert atheists to Christianity. What I am offering is merely an alternative to the false dilemma of “accommodation” or “confrontation.” And what I am aiming for is much more modest: For at least one person to think twice before making a caricature of Christianity. Doing so is sloppy thinking and, more often than not, doing so has no effect beyond making serious people write you off. People should criticize Christianity all they want, but they should do so in knowledge—knowledge won by the act of disbelief—and not in ignorance of the thing criticized.
But I don't know how it still won't eventually come down to either an accommodation or confrontation.
Posted by Rawrain (Member # 12414) on :
The world is flat because I percieve it that way and not one of you could persuade me differently regardless of how many 3D globes you show me of this flat thing* I live on called Earth.
Metaphorically madening Posted by Week-Dead Possum (Member # 11917) on :
Having known well and having liked many Christians, and of many different orders of Christianity, my reaction to the OP quote would be this: Everything I have ever liked or admired about another human being has come from that person, not from their race, creed, politics, orientation, gender or nationality. There are many effects any one of these things can have on people, but the fact that you like or admire or trust another human being does not speak directly to the efficacy or righteousness of their beliefs, and even less so, their religion. This is just another manifestation of an appeal to the association fallacy. I like a Christian, it must be because of their religion. Their religion has an effect on them, but what effect? It could as easily be negative, it could as easily turned out not to have much of an effect at all. How do you really know? Why would you really care?
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
quote:I like a Christian, it must be because of their religion. Their religion has an effect on them, but what effect? It could as easily be negative, it could as easily turned out not to have much of an effect at all. How do you really know? Why would you really care?
I agree, but that's not the problem. The problem is this:
"Ah, he's a Muslim/Christian/Jew/Atheist. I don't want to talk to/work with/live near him."
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:And what are you going to do with your frustration? How are you going to make things better? I feel like the way the author approaches this type of discussion is exactly what we need.
Taking out all of the Christian apologetics (a good portion of the essay), what the article is left with seems to be:
1) Get to know Christians, and earn their trust. 2) Then ask them skeptical questions.
The main problem is that number 2 is considered dreadfully rude in our society. I have no intention of asking skeptical questions to my religious friends (Christian, Muslim, Hindu or otherwise). If I did so, I don't believe we'd stay friends for very long.
Am I missing something? Are the essay's suggestions more nuanced than the above?
Added:
quote: "Ah, he's a Muslim/Christian/Jew/Atheist. I don't want to talk to/work with/live near him."
If this what you consider the problem, I'd suggest that you don't really understand what it is like being an atheist living in the US. Most of my friends (online or otherwise) are religious in some form or another, and I would never avoid them because of this. I suspect most atheists in this country also have a large number of religious friends and acquaintances.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote:I like a Christian, it must be because of their religion. Their religion has an effect on them, but what effect?
I think certain belief systems do encourage particular behaviors. So if somebody were to say, "I like fundamentalist Christians because they tend to be extremely genuine and service oriented", I would completely agree. Sure there are exceptions and negative characteristics as well, but my point is why deny that belief systems absolutely affect who people become?
This is something I've been thinking about lately. I consider myself an atheist. Most of the people I know who are committed atheists tend to be more selfish and self-involved than most of the people I know who are committed Christians. But the atheists also tend to be far more tolerant and accepting. I think it's important to recognize what beliefs cause what characteristics so that groups can better focus their beliefs to encompass the behaviors they ideally want.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
quote:Am I missing something? Are the essay's suggestions more nuanced than the above?
I think so. It's not just atheists approaching Christians. It's Christians approaching atheists, Muslims approaching Jews. Anything approaching anything. When you walk up, don't assume that they're fundamentalist or antagonistic. Don't bring any of the stereotype baggage with you. Then you can have a real, honest discussion.
quote:
quote:"Ah, he's a Muslim/Christian/Jew/Atheist. I don't want to talk to/work with/live near him."
If this what you consider the problem, I'd suggest that you don't really understand what it is like being an atheist living in the US. Most of my friends (online or otherwise) are religious in some form or another, and I would never avoid them because of this. I suspect most atheists in this country also have a large number of religious friends and acquaintances.
Again, not just talking about Atheists. How many fights, skirmishes, wars, etc. are ignited and maintained by assumptions and prejudices rather than discussion and an attempt at actual understanding?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Most of the people I know who are committed atheists tend to be more selfish and self-involved than most of the people I know who are committed Christians.
For me, it's a mixed bag. The Christians I know, on average, aren't really any more or less selfish and self-involved than the atheists, though the atheists are certainly more tolerant. I don't credit the atheists for that though, as it's hard to be subject to any sort of prescriptive/proscriptive doctrine and find yourself more tolerant/accepting than someone who is not so constrained.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:And good fiction, like good myths, can form cornerstones in a culture or in someone's beliefs because they contain some sort of truth.
But this does not make the myths true. The myths -- like all fictions -- are lies.
That is what fiction is. It is lies.
The lies may make certain things that are true easier to swallow, or easier to understand. The lies may also make other things that are untrue easier to swallow or understand. The more salient point is that, based on the myth alone, you don't have a credible framework to decide; you must judge the "truths" asserted or bolstered by the myth based on how they jibe with the rest of your accumulated experience.
And that still doesn't make the myths any more true. It just means that they're useful to you, in your opinion.
"Useful" and "true" are not synonyms. This is a very important concept that liberal religious people need to understand when seeking to have conversations with atheists.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:When you walk up, don't assume that they're fundamentalist or antagonistic. Don't bring any of the stereotype baggage with you. Then you can have a real, honest discussion.
Ah, I guess that's the disconnect. I don't do this. When I meet a Christian (or Muslim or Hindu), I don't assume any such thing.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Don't bring any of the stereotype baggage with you. Then you can have a real, honest discussion.
No, you can't. The real honest discussion requires mutual cooperation. I'm perfectly willing to discuss what people really believe and share what I really believe, but very few of the people I interact with regularly are in a position to do the same. Maybe it's just the geography I'm in, but introspective, accepting, and open discussion just isn't the norm.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
Do you then give in to the norm? Or do you at least try?
If they bring the baggage and you bring the baggage, there's no discussion.
If they bring the baggage and you don't, you at least tried.
If both of you don't bring the baggage, then you can have a discussion.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote:Maybe it's just the geography I'm in, but introspective, accepting, and open discussion just isn't the norm.
I agree it's not the norm, regardless of geography. But I think if people feel safe and you probe gently, most people do end up enjoying such discussions.
Personally, I don't know how others can have meaningful relationships without understanding what and how people think. At work, there's two other people on my "team" that I work with constantly all day. I find the idea of never discussing anything important to me or to them to just be unbearable. When I first approached these types of discussions (individually- they started at different years), each was pretty reticent and uncomfortable. With time and care though, both seem to enjoy them and start them now with some regularity. I think the key is to come off as open and genuinely interested and avoid topics that you know will make them upset.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Sure, one way to deal with the cognitive dissonance caused by ridiculous religious belief is to discard the portions of it that you simply can't swallow. I'd suggest to him that chucking the whole thing would have been the more rational approach.
Why would this be more rational?
If my science textbook led me to believe that an electron was a tiny blue sphere that traveled in a perfect circle around a nucleus and then I later learned that was untrue, would it be more rational of me to correct that one particular belief or to cease trusting anything I learned from science textbooks?
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:
If my science textbook led me to believe that an electron was a tiny blue sphere that traveled in a perfect circle around a nucleus and then I later learned that was untrue, would it be more rational of me to correct that one particular belief or to cease trusting anything I learned from science textbooks?
But he didn't "learn it wasn't true". He simply realized that it was ridiculous. His trusted source of "truth" fed him a complete falsehood. One so obviously false that he rejected it completely once old enough to think about it critically.
How would you learn that electrons don't perfectly rotate around a nucleus? From science. So of course you wouldn't abandon science. It's the thing that corrected your false belief. Science is self-correcting. That's kind of the whole point.
Edit: Lots.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xavier: Science is self-correcting. That's kind of the whole point.
And by extension, religion isn't self-correcting? That's a pretty broad generalization that I thing is untrue.
Also:
quote:How would you learn that electrons don't perfectly rotate around a nucleus? From science.
And what taught him at first that electrons were blue spheres traveling in a perfect circle around a nucleus? Science.
I don't think the distinctions you're making are as clear cut as you're making them out to be.
Posted by Jenos (Member # 12168) on :
I think this article fails to grasp WHY it is that athiests do feel that there is a battle going on, why language such as "attack" their beliefs are used. And the problem is not that one carries such belief, its that said beliefs shape policy. When creationists shape policy to try and disallow evolution being taught in schools, what options are there other than to attack?
When something like 35% of Americans believe the bible is literally true, and most importantly vote for policy based on this, its not the biggest issue that the relatively small subgroup of Christians who feel the same way as the author feel slighted at the atheist's inability to disbelieve. Because the type of people who resonate with what this article said are not the type of people lobbying their school board to teach intelligent design. And to many atheists, the latter is a far bigger problem.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
Yeah we've had this "science vs religion" discussion before. I don't think I'm interested in rehashing the whole thing.
I guess I should have known that's the direction the discussion would go after my post.
I would just point out that if you are trying to have a reasonable discussion with most atheists, trying to prop up religion as a valid epistemology comparable to science isn't going to win you many points.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Originally posted by The White Whale: Do you then give in to the norm? Or do you at least try?
If they bring the baggage and you bring the baggage, there's no discussion.
If they bring the baggage and you don't, you at least tried.
If both of you don't bring the baggage, then you can have a discussion.
My problem with this article is that, in my experience, it is rarely the atheist who is carrying the baggage. I only know one atheist who may be incapable of a thoughtful, respectful conversation about the nature of beliefs with a religious person, but then she was brutally sexually abused by "devout Mormons" when she was young so she's got bigger issues that she's still working through.
The rest of them carry relatively nuanced views about religion and are open to conversation but all understand that the it's risky to try it because of the ubiquity of antipathy for atheism. Even acknowledging atheism around here is almost like coming out gay. You have to be very careful about who you tell and how you do it.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote: Even acknowledging atheism around here is almost like coming out gay. You have to be very careful about who you tell and how you do it.
Yeah, I went to a meeting for new members for "Omaha Atheists" held at Borders. It was hilarious how people who entered asked if they were in the right place.
"Is this the... meetup for the group... in Omaha... the get together... new members..."
No one wanted to reveal to a group that they were an atheist.
Added: I'd also point out that at least a few of the people who attended had never met an "out of the closet" atheist before the meetup.
[ November 10, 2010, 04:31 PM: Message edited by: Xavier ]
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
I have one friend that is has been "in the closet" for many years and only recently "came out" to his immediate family. He still keeps up appearances to everyone else though, attending church services, teaching Sunday School, administering "sacred ordinances", etc. The perceived social cost of coming out is so great that he'd rather keep up the facade than risk it.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Let's be fair, though: it is precisely those sorts of atheists who most often do wind up bearing baggage into these sorts of conversations.
But, IMO, whether or not there's bitterness -- and whether or not that bitterness is deserved -- on either side is a bit beside the point. That bitterness shouldn't preclude the possibility of civil communication, and atheists who can't set any lingering bitterness aside are just as destructive to civility as religious people. This is, as far as I'm concerned, an acknowledged given.
More important, however, is the fact that, to an atheist, things that are not true are false. Religious people have a much vaguer understanding of the word "true," in my experience, and are as a consequence far easier to insult; what they mean by "true" is what most atheists might mean by "desirable."
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Let's be fair, though: it is precisely those sorts of atheists who most often do wind up bearing baggage into these sorts of conversations.
Which atheists? The people I'm talking about don't exhibit much bitterness at all. The overriding obstacle for them is fear or, perhaps more precisely, prudence. You can't have a frank conversation because either a) you or your family will be punished for your aberrant beliefs and/or b) the religious person is likely to be offended by such a discussion.
I would *love* to be able to discuss this sort of stuff with the religious people all around me, but very few people are amenable to a conversation about the nature of belief. There just isn't that much reflection going on and people seem, at best, to find it an uncomfortable topic.
[ November 10, 2010, 05:21 PM: Message edited by: MattP ]
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:Even acknowledging atheism around here is almost like coming out gay. You have to be very careful about who you tell and how you do it.
Expanding on this some more... When accepting the meetup on meetup.com for the Omaha Atheists Group meeting, it asks if you want to automatically announce it on your Facebook page. Niki (my wife) did so.
Her Mom, something of a closet atheist, made a point of telling her she was nuts for putting it out there like that. She said she considered "liking" the posting, but didn't out of fear that others would think that she herself was an atheist (which would be true!).
Her father, who is about as liberal of a Christian as they come (to the point where I'd describe him as being "spiritual" instead of "religious"), was fairly upset that Niki came out that way.
It's nuts.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
I've heard the same thing from my wife - "Just don't use the 'A'-word." Seriously. I list my religion on Facebook as "None of the above."
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
MattP: I can certainly accept that the vast majority of Mormons in Utah are no good at having a good conversation about belief with an atheist. At best they will just drop "We'll just have to agree to disagree" at worst they will condemn you. But that is precisely because they have so little experience talking with atheists. Of course they are going to get it wrong the first few times.
It wasn't until I was in my 20's that I even seriously entertained the idea that atheists were not just hedonists or jaded former believers. It wasn't because I didn't want to change my mind, I just didn't have a lot of atheists to talk to, and the few my age were very immature like me and hence their beliefs sounded almost comical to my ears. I'm sure I would have sounded just as comical in describing my views to an adult.
But without that exposure you never make any changes. I just happened upon Hatrack and that's where I got it. Atheists, especially ones raised that way are not intrinsically better at discussing belief, though they often are raised in households where they at least have some understanding of the major religions and their dogmas.
My roommate in college was an ex-mormon/atheist. I thought he was a wonderful individual, he changed many of my misconceptions just by being himself. We got into some arguments because he felt I was too intelligent to really remain a Mormon, and all I needed was somebody to give me a little push. Was there a risk either of us might piss of the other, sure, but we didn't, and when our paths split up again, I was better off for our conversations even if at the time they had seemed futile.
Anyway, I'm droning on, but Matt, there are many Mormons, and some of these I am lucky enough to have had in my own family (both immediate and extended) where atheism isn't an automatic strike against your character. As the years have gone by some of my family have walked away from religion and decided on atheism. Somehow they still make it to family functions and we all have a good time. I feel comfortable asking them how they arrived in the place they have, and they know its safe to talk about it with me.
Sure we have people who can't handle it, and were it brought up they would stand up and loudly remonstrate these family members, but by and large we've accepted that if active temple recommend holding was a requirement for family solidarity, we'd have a very fractured family.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP: I list my religion on Facebook as "None of the above."
I was curious about this, so I did a quick tally of my friends on Facebook, just based on what is listed in their Info box and not based on any extra knowledge I may have.
Rounded, it came out to (grouping by non-religious, religious, and other). Exact matches by quotes and non-quoted categories are my own: "Atheist" 6% "Agnostic" 6% "None" 2%
Christian 10% "Jewish" 2%
Joke 10% Nothing 52% Other 10%
How do you guys fare?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amanecer:
quote:I like a Christian, it must be because of their religion. Their religion has an effect on them, but what effect?
I think certain belief systems do encourage particular behaviors. So if somebody were to say, "I like fundamentalist Christians because they tend to be extremely genuine and service oriented", I would completely agree. Sure there are exceptions and negative characteristics as well, but my point is why deny that belief systems absolutely affect who people become?
No, I'm sorry, this does not obtain. I don't deny that belief systems affect how people become- I explicitly state that they *do*. My objection is with this association fallacy- you do not have a strong argument in favor of the idea that a religion is responsible for making a person that way, *and* that another organized cultural structure not related to theism or god-based faith would not have the same effect. In short you can show that some religious people are kind and generous, but you cannot show that it is their faith that makes them this way. You can only show a correlation according to your personal bias. That is not worth much, I'm sorry to say.
You ought to be far, far more skeptical of your assumptions as well. You will accept, I'm sure, that certain people of tremendous religious faith are also radical, violent, hateful and antisocial. You may even argue that, as is true in the case of many of these people, that it is the religious teachings they have received which have warped them so. Quite right too- but there's the problem with your supposition. If they posses strong faith in god, and have been taught a morally warped religious view, then really their faith in god has done nothing to instill in them any of the values you admire. Instead, a religion has been used to instill entirely different values, and negative ones. So you can see that even supposing all religious people share a real faith in the existence of god, the values that cause those people to act and think the way they do are religious ones, and those may be of any variety under the sun. So what does faith do to someone, if so many of the faithful disagree so much on what is morally correct? If they kill each other? Or is that religion- a social organizational tool?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
I caught a bit of an interview with an author of a book/study on religion the other day and they mentioned that religious people do actually perform more service, but that they'd been unable to find any religious causality. The benevolent behavior, they concluded, was a result of the sense of community found within most major religions rather than any particular doctrine or practices.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:Sure, one way to deal with the cognitive dissonance caused by ridiculous religious belief is to discard the portions of it that you simply can't swallow. I'd suggest to him that chucking the whole thing would have been the more rational approach.
Why would this be more rational?
Ok, wanted to isolate this for clarity- we'll come back to it. Here you have asked a question. Now you provide an analogy.
quote: If my science textbook led me to believe that an electron was a tiny blue sphere that traveled in a perfect circle around a nucleus and then I later learned that was untrue, would it be more rational of me to correct that one particular belief or to cease trusting anything I learned from science textbooks?
Ok, Tres: this is and has long been your fundamental disconnect in terms of understanding the philosophy of science versus that of religion.
First you ask why it is more rational to discard a religion if you don't agree with some of its basic tenets, rather than just chucking those you don't like. Ok.
Second you make an analogy to scientific *theories* and *facts* being wrong in a textbook, and say you wouldn't throw out all scientific textbooks for that mistake. Ok again. But what you fail to connect here is that scientific *theories* and *facts* are frequently corrected by the pursuit of better *theories* and *facts* through the *scientific method*. So if you had been taught to understand science properly when you were a young child, you would know when reading a textbook, that its statements should be based on findings obtained, and theories devised using the *scientific method*. You should understand that these findings and theories are subject to inevitable revision, in the face of further data and better theories. In fact, the book veritably presents itself to you as a challenge to you to find ways of disproving the claims it makes. And that happens all the time, scientists read those books, then realize there are problems with the theories and facts, then they research those problems, and then they write new books with better facts, and more robust theories, and along the way, everybody reaps the benefit of all this wonderful knowledge we have of the world, and all the ways that knowledge helps us to thrive.
Now to your first part again. Why is it not rational to do the same thing with religious doctrines? Well, it is rational at the base to discard beliefs you find inequitable with your observations of the world. However, take this analogy as an alternative to your own: you go to McDonald's with the intent of finding a wholesome and well balanced diet for the day. You find that doing so requires you to buy a wide variety of McDonald's products, cannibalize various components from different dishes and mix them together in an unpleasing fashion- hamburgers but no buns, a pack of ketchup, a parfe, one coke, and a pickle, or some such combination (this has been done by many researchers).
Now, would it not be more rational, faced with a restaurant designed to serve single meals of fries and burgers with sodas, to leave the restaurant and go to a grocery store, where the items are packaged in such a way as to allow you to make more convenient and appetizing choices that fulfill your needs at a maximum of efficiency and a minimum of waste (think of all the buns thrown away!)?
If you were to take only the parts of the scientific method that you liked, and ignore the rest, the purpose of that system would be completely obliterated. It is a system of thought which works to improve knowledge simply because it encourages a cohesive process. Religious doctrines are also parts of cohesive wholes, and if you feel the need to ignore and selectively observe only some of them, that ought to tell you that you're shopping in the wrong store- that this cohesive whole you're picking at is not something you should be spending your time on. Because in the work of selectively observing your take on any given religious system, you have effectively substituted your own rational thinking for the philosophy in which your religion is rooted. You have done all the moral footwork of patching together a belief system you feel is right, and you've called it by the name of something you don't *really* believe in. That isn't rational.
So here's the fallout from all this. You get a few different kinds of people. You get those who pick and choose and effectively make up their own private philosophies- ones they craft using the pieces they have to resemble those of people they admire. They call themselves religious, maybe a certain religion in particular, but really, they just don't have the courage to call themselves anything else (my bias- maybe it's not about courage). Then you get the hard liners. They have done all this math and realized that they still very much need to believe in *their* religion, but in order to do so they need to believe it *all.* And they figure out how to do that- they rationalize every belief they have, and can become incredibly inventive about ways of making it all work together. They can be peaceful or scary- it depends on how necessary it is to them that their religion *work* for them. Many of them are so tried by this challenge that they become the religious philosophers. They find ways of staying in the bounds of all their doctrines, and yet bending and shaping those very doctrines, and how they are interpreted, to fit their own morality. But again, they end up serving their own moral purposes. They end up seeking some reason, some rational process that makes sense to them, and to as many others as possible. The literal transubstantiation of Catholicism becomes, over time, a sort of dualist belief in the literal and the figurative forms. And when those interpretations are set- they could have always been there. They fit better than what was there before.
Then you just have your humanists, your atheists, your whomever. We study the world around us, and examine our own senses of morality, and we try to make the best of things. To my mind- it's a blissful study in focus and perspective. No baggage, no threads of different size to weave together.
[ November 10, 2010, 07:35 PM: Message edited by: Orincoro ]
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP: I've heard the same thing from my wife - "Just don't use the 'A'-word." Seriously. I list my religion on Facebook as "None of the above."
As an atheist, I just have that question not even displayed at all for the awkwardness reason.
I also like to visit low-brow gossip blogs . This was comment of the day (I didn't write it):
quote: Me. . . well, I am an atheist. An atheist with a slightly Buddhist-influenced, science-fictiony belief in the conservation of energy and matter. And one embracing of the fact that the universe contains many surprises, miracles even. For me it's enough that the universe is itself miraculous. I don't need the hand of god (anthropomorphized or otherwise) to appreciate the world or to act as a moral person. Period. I am not out attacking Christians or trying to *convert* them to non-belief. I don't think I am generically smarter than the religious, although I sometimes wonder how they could believe x or y. Much the way they wonder why I cannot see their *truth,* I suspect. I'd simply like the same level of respect and understanding of my non-belief as they would like to have for their faith. (See, even atheists know about the Golden Rule.) And while these billboards and cheesy and lame, it's kind of nice to know there are enough of us out there to merit a sign or two. I live in a liberal bastion and still I don't go around telling people I am atheist, even on occasions when it might be appropriate to do so. I have no problem telling feminist-haters that I am a feminist or shouting my pro-choice and pro-gay marriage politics from the rooftops. But when it comes to straight up not believing in god. . . awkward. My socially liberal but southern, churchgoing in-laws have no idea. Neither do many of my friends. God is a given for the majority of Americans, including many of my not-very-often-practicing Christian and Jewish friends. Being an atheist is, to some degree, being an outsider. Being untrustworthy on the most basic level to someone who is religious. A sinner. It would be nice to feel like this was something I could mention when appropriate, without exhaustively defending myself, but quite often it seems like it would have only a negative effect. So I am silent. And I don't like feeling like I should be silent.
Given the quote from the first post, it seems like both sides are feeling attacked, when neither is actually trying (apart from on the internet).
Posted by Ginol_Enam (Member # 7070) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xavier: [QUOTE]So mostly I am frustrated with human nature. That people (in general) are so conditioned to accept what their parents (and other authorities) tell them as being true, and then their tendency to pass the beliefs onto their children for a whole new cycle of irrational thought.
I know the conversation has gone past this, so forgive me if I'm being repetitive or whatnot
Anyway, I can really understand your comment here. Nothing is more frustrating than someone who absolutely refuses to realize that they are incorrect and stubbornly hold on to false truths because someone they trust more than you told them this "truth."
However, I also feel this trait is a large part of why we've advanced as a species. I have done absolutely no independent research into the Earth of its shape or size or anything. I believe the teachers and whatnot who have told me that the Earth is round and orbits around the sun, etc. Without that knowledge being told to me I would probably (if I thought of it at all) come to some other conclusion similar to all those scientists who swore up and down the Earth was flat.
Trusting in someone else can get you burned, sure, but it also corrects that "collective knowledge" that lives past the original discoverer and enables us to advance beyond that knowledge.
Anyway, that was all. Carry on.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:he felt I was too intelligent to really remain a Mormon
Clearly a misconception.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Because in the work of selectively observing your take on any given religious system, you have effectively substituted your own rational thinking for the philosophy in which your religion is rooted. You have done all the moral footwork of patching together a belief system you feel is right, and you've called it by the name of something you don't *really* believe in. That isn't rational.
Isn't rationality about coming to your own conclusions using evidence and reasoning? Patching together a belief system I judge to be right based on my own rational thinking is pretty much exactly what I'd consider rational. Whereas accepting a set of beliefs rigidly, as if it were a Combo Meal at McDonalds, seems to me to be irrational unless there's some compelling reason to believe that dropping one belief from that set invalidates all the others.
Your complaint seems to boil down to the notion that I can't call myself a believer in X if I don't accept everything that someone in the past decided would be included in the package of X. I see that just as a question of terminology - not as a rational way to decide what to believe. If I've found I like my Big Mac with no cheese, I think its irrational to request a Big Mac with cheese just so I call most accurately call my meal by the name of "Big Mac". I think the more rational soluation would be to just order one with no cheese.
...
Keep in mind that I belong to a religious tradition that, just like the scientific method, is intended to be corrected and refined over time - and which offers a methodology through which we can do so. The New Testament focuses on how Jesus shows up and overturns many of the commonly accepted ideas of Jewish religious authorities. He chooses simple men of faith rather than religious scholars as his disciples and preaches a message of having an individual relationship with God. He doesn't say "some of the things the religious scholars are teaching are wrong, so you should reject Jewish teachings altogether". Instead, His story seems to embody the notion that we should question and refine those teachings on our own by having a relationship with God.
I can't speak for all religion, but I do not believe Christianity is designed to be a "cohesive whole" set of beliefs. Rather, I think it is intended to be a method through which to approach the world and find answers as an individual in a relationship with the divine.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote:My objection is with this association fallacy- you do not have a strong argument in favor of the idea that a religion is responsible for making a person that way, *and* that another organized cultural structure not related to theism or god-based faith would not have the same effect.
I don't understand why it's important to show that religion is the only way that a person can become a certain way. I don't think it is. Also, I absolutely agree that some people's belief systems can lead them to radical, violent behavior. From your post, it seems like you're willing to give religion all of the blame and none of the credit. To me it seems pretty irrefutable that surrounding yourself with people and meetings that constantly reinforce concepts like service will lead to more service. And on the negative side, constantly surrounding yourself with judgmental people who judge will lead to more judgment. I think each religious grouping has it's own emphasis and that absolutely affects the values and behaviors of its adherents. People who choose to fixate only on the negative effects of religion seem to me to be responding with their emotions.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:he felt I was too intelligent to really remain a Mormon
Clearly a misconception.
Clearly. You can be so charming when you try KOM.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:Because in the work of selectively observing your take on any given religious system, you have effectively substituted your own rational thinking for the philosophy in which your religion is rooted. You have done all the moral footwork of patching together a belief system you feel is right, and you've called it by the name of something you don't *really* believe in. That isn't rational.
Isn't rationality about coming to your own conclusions using evidence and reasoning? Patching together a belief system I judge to be right based on my own rational thinking is pretty much exactly what I'd consider rational.
Yeah, I suppose it's *more* rational than just accepting all of it. That doesn't make it more rational than starting from a broader base of ideas. You can build a bridge out of toothpicks if you try hard enough- but you're not starting with the right material.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: I can't speak for all religion, but I do not believe Christianity is designed to be a "cohesive whole" set of beliefs. Rather, I think it is intended to be a method through which to approach the world and find answers as an individual in a relationship with the divine.
Well, that more or less speaks to my point. One need not look very hard at Christianity to pick out countless ways in which the Christian tradition works *against* the advancement of reason in favor of the pursuit of dubiously scatterbrained teachings about morality given in an historical context very far removed from our own. We know why science as a set of principles exists, and what it does for us. Religion can be seen, and is seen by many, as existing primarily to perpetuate itself as a power-brokering institution.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amanecer:
quote:My objection is with this association fallacy- you do not have a strong argument in favor of the idea that a religion is responsible for making a person that way, *and* that another organized cultural structure not related to theism or god-based faith would not have the same effect.
I don't understand why it's important to show that religion is the only way that a person can become a certain way. I don't think it is.
To be clear with you- my argument is that it is impossible to actually show this, because it is not true. Because it is not true, that shows the association fallacy I'm talking about- assuming religion makes somebody a certain way. I hope that's clear to you.
Now, if you would like to know why your inability to prove this as a positive correlation is important to me, it is this: Religion may be largely responsible for the way you act, but faith is not. So religion by any other name can have the same effect on you that *your* religion has, without god. That's humanism buddy- that's understanding that it *is* all about the world around you, and how you relate to it, that defines who you are. And you've just offered fairly convincing proof that you are, at least accidentally, a humanist.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote:And you've just offered fairly convincing proof that you are, at least accidentally, a humanist.
I do consider myself a humanist and previously said I was an atheist. I don't really think we're disagreeing on the point you think we are. You say religion isn't the only way to become X and I say you're right, but certain religions do seem quite good at instilling X.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:Because in the work of selectively observing your take on any given religious system, you have effectively substituted your own rational thinking for the philosophy in which your religion is rooted. You have done all the moral footwork of patching together a belief system you feel is right, and you've called it by the name of something you don't *really* believe in. That isn't rational.
Isn't rationality about coming to your own conclusions using evidence and reasoning? Patching together a belief system I judge to be right based on my own rational thinking is pretty much exactly what I'd consider rational. Whereas accepting a set of beliefs rigidly, as if it were a Combo Meal at McDonalds, seems to me to be irrational unless there's some compelling reason to believe that dropping one belief from that set invalidates all the others.
Your complaint seems to boil down to the notion that I can't call myself a believer in X if I don't accept everything that someone in the past decided would be included in the package of X. I see that just as a question of terminology - not as a rational way to decide what to believe. If I've found I like my Big Mac with no cheese, I think its irrational to request a Big Mac with cheese just so I call most accurately call my meal by the name of "Big Mac". I think the more rational soluation would be to just order one with no cheese.
...
Keep in mind that I belong to a religious tradition that, just like the scientific method, is intended to be corrected and refined over time - and which offers a methodology through which we can do so. The New Testament focuses on how Jesus shows up and overturns many of the commonly accepted ideas of Jewish religious authorities. He chooses simple men of faith rather than religious scholars as his disciples and preaches a message of having an individual relationship with God. He doesn't say "some of the things the religious scholars are teaching are wrong, so you should reject Jewish teachings altogether". Instead, His story seems to embody the notion that we should question and refine those teachings on our own by having a relationship with God.
I can't speak for all religion, but I do not believe Christianity is designed to be a "cohesive whole" set of beliefs. Rather, I think it is intended to be a method through which to approach the world and find answers as an individual in a relationship with the divine.
I think a big problem with the picking and choosing approach is that you have to believe the whole thing is Divine in the first place.
With Christianity/Judaism - it's difficult to say that God made a mistake and changed His laws. I understand if Jews were bad followers, so God asked others to step in - but to change the rules? Seems weird.
Say you don't like the fact that the Bible says homosexuality is an abomination. So you pretend it isn't in the Bible. But that's a big problem - how can you say that it is divine and yet that part was wrong?
So you can allege that there were problems with transmission and it was corrupted. But if that is the case, then why believe it is true in the first place? It gets less "scientific" and "rational" if you begin to undermine the tradition so that you can pick the parts of the Bible you like.
It's difficult.
(P.S. - I realize that this post puts many of the defensive - so I hope it is read academically and not personally)
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:he felt I was too intelligent to really remain a Mormon
Clearly a misconception.
Clearly. You can be so charming when you try KoM.
You object to my observing that Mormons can be intelligent? I suppose you would know better than I. Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Only if you assume that BlackBlade's post was sarcastic. That ambiguity is tricky. It cuts both ways.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Say you don't like the fact that the Bible says homosexuality is an abomination. So you pretend it isn't in the Bible. But that's a big problem - how can you say that it is divine and yet that part was wrong?
How, indeed? Yet I do not see you arguing that the laws of Leviticus should be enforced as they were originally interpreted, stonings, drivings-forth, and all. Why not?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:he felt I was too intelligent to really remain a Mormon
Clearly a misconception.
Clearly. You can be so charming when you try KoM.
You object to my observing that Mormons can be intelligent? I suppose you would know better than I.
You should listen to Ms. Boots. I didn't commit myself in either direction since you chose not to.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Say you don't like the fact that the Bible says homosexuality is an abomination. So you pretend it isn't in the Bible. But that's a big problem - how can you say that it is divine and yet that part was wrong?
How, indeed? Yet I do not see you arguing that the laws of Leviticus should be enforced as they were originally interpreted, stonings, drivings-forth, and all. Why not?
Because we've never spoken about it before.
I believe all of Leviticus, along with its classic interpretation under the Orthodox Jewish tradition is true. And I expect that the enforcement of the law will and should continue in messianic times.
I don't really think humanity will have much a of problem with that when God reveals Himself to everyone, and until then, there is no Jewish court with authority to actually enforce those laws.
One should also realize that in a theocracy where you believe God is a part of your society - the role of courts and punishment has less to do with justice than it does to society standing to live with a sinner. God takes care of justice - the Jewish legal system makes most things incredibly difficult to prove, and a court that issued capital punishment once every 70 years was considered a murderous court.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:he felt I was too intelligent to really remain a Mormon
Clearly a misconception.
Clearly. You can be so charming when you try KoM.
You object to my observing that Mormons can be intelligent? I suppose you would know better than I.
You should listen to Ms. Boots. I didn't commit myself in either direction since you chose not to.
I bow to my superior at ambiguity. Well played, sir.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:I believe all of Leviticus, along with its classic interpretation under the Orthodox Jewish tradition is true. And I expect that the enforcement of the law will and should continue in messianic times.
So you do in fact believe that a man who has anal sex with another man ought to be killed by stoning, and that this is justice? (Never mind the difficulties of proof; for purposes of determining what is just, we may assume that the act was performed in broad daylight on a public street before three rabbis of impeccable character.) Would you, personally, pick up a stone, look a man in the eye, and throw it at him with the intent to kill? Have you imagined the unpleasant crunching sound as the stone hits the skull, and imagined the look of fear and agony in his eyes as you bend to get the next missile? Is this, in your mind, justice?
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:I believe all of Leviticus, along with its classic interpretation under the Orthodox Jewish tradition is true. And I expect that the enforcement of the law will and should continue in messianic times.
So you do in fact believe that a man who has anal sex with another man ought to be killed by stoning, and that this is justice? (Never mind the difficulties of proof; for purposes of determining what is just, we may assume that the act was performed in broad daylight on a public street before three rabbis of impeccable character.) Would you, personally, pick up a stone, look a man in the eye, and throw it at him with the intent to kill? Have you imagined the unpleasant crunching sound as the stone hits the skull, and imagined the look of fear and agony in his eyes as you bend to get the next missile? Is this, in your mind, justice?
Sure. In a world in which it is established that homosexuality is against God's will? Sure.
Part of the act is warning the person, and the person has to acknowledge the warning and that he is doing it anyways.
I believe the messianic age will make it clear to someone like you that God is a Jewish God, etc. etc. If it doesn't end up being clear, there are legal arguments as to why someone like you should not actually deserve the death penalty (educational differences, etc.), and assuming that you can't get off based on those legal arguments, then yes, I'd probably not throw a stone at you since to me it would make no sense why you should be punished.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Armoth did write that it wasn't about justice. Apparently is it about how to live with sinners.
It doesn't seem to address how we live with people who stone other people.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Sure. In a world in which it is established that homosexuality is against God's will? Sure.
All right, just checking. I'll make a point of ensuring that my storm troopers know about your preferred method of execution when the Revolution comes.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: Part of the act is warning the person, and the person has to acknowledge the warning and that he is doing it anyways.
Wait a sec. What act? The act of stoning is a warning?
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: Part of the act is warning the person, and the person has to acknowledge the warning and that he is doing it anyways.
Wait a sec. What act? The act of stoning is a warning?
Before someone is liable for the death penalty, two witnesses need to witness him committing the act, warn him before he commits the act, and he needs to respond to the warning confirming that he received the warning.
Without that warning and response, the person is not liable to the death penalty.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Sure. In a world in which it is established that homosexuality is against God's will? Sure.
All right, just checking. I'll make a point of ensuring that my storm troopers know about your preferred method of execution when the Revolution comes.
Are you telling me you wouldn't abide by God's laws if he up and proved Himself to you?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
So to be clear, when you said "Sure. In a world in which it is established that homosexuality is against God's will? Sure." did you mean you'd be fine with the act of warning someone or the act of stoning someone?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amanecer:
quote:And you've just offered fairly convincing proof that you are, at least accidentally, a humanist.
I do consider myself a humanist and previously said I was an atheist. I don't really think we're disagreeing on the point you think we are. You say religion isn't the only way to become X and I say you're right, but certain religions do seem quite good at instilling X.
I couldn't tell which position you were coming from. As to your last point, I feel I must disagree in principle. Religion *can* be good at instilling values of kindness. Religion as a rule, if you take a look at the historical record, not to mention the religions of the world today, could not fairly be said to be so good at this.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: So to be clear, when you said "Sure. In a world in which it is established that homosexuality is against God's will? Sure." did you mean you'd be fine with the act of warning someone or the act of stoning someone?
In a society in which it is clear that God has revealed Himself to be God and that the Jewish law is His law - I'd be fine with the application of Jewish law to any violations of halacha including homosexual anal penetration.
In order to issue captial punishment, two witnesses would need to catch the homosexuals in the act, warn them that they are violating a law worthy of the death penalty, those committing the act would need to confirm they heard the warning, and continue, and then I would be okay with the issuing of capital punishment.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth:
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Sure. In a world in which it is established that homosexuality is against God's will? Sure.
All right, just checking. I'll make a point of ensuring that my storm troopers know about your preferred method of execution when the Revolution comes.
Are you telling me you wouldn't abide by God's laws if he up and proved Himself to you?
A god who wanted us to stone homosexuals ( or anyone else for that matter) could not prove himself to me. I would be certain that it was a false god or that I was mistaken in what god wanted.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: Sure. In a world in which it is established that homosexuality is against God's will? Sure.
May I ask you humbly why you think you are morally superior to Muslims who bomb embassies and airplanes, and beat and kill unchaste women on the streets of their cities?
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
Because he believes his God is the correct one, duh.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Before someone is liable for the death penalty, two witnesses need to witness him committing the act, warn him before he commits the act, and he needs to respond to the warning confirming that he received the warning.
I've got to say, any two men who get their sex on with each other in front of two straights who've warned them that, if they continue to do so, they'll arrange to have both of them killed -- those men are my heroes.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xavier: Because he believes his God is the correct one, duh.
More accurately, he believes his understanding of God is the correct one.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth:
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Sure. In a world in which it is established that homosexuality is against God's will? Sure.
All right, just checking. I'll make a point of ensuring that my storm troopers know about your preferred method of execution when the Revolution comes.
Are you telling me you wouldn't abide by God's laws if he up and proved Himself to you?
That would depend on three points. First, do I think the laws just? If the laws are unjust, then I would do my best to avoid them and to overthrow the regime that imposed them; divine or not. And I hope this is also true of you; consider the Aztec gods, for example. The Aztec pantheon demands sacrifice so that they can continue to keep the Sun lit. Would you accept this bargain as just? You might take it as a devil's deal to keep humanity alive; I shall deal with that in a minute. But would you consider it fair that children should die horribly to appease bloodthirsty gods? Would you not work to find a different means of keeping the Sun alive?
Next, there is the issue of credible enforcement. If the god in question set forth unjust laws, but was able to reliably detect my breaking them and punish me, then I might grit my teeth and follow the law, as in the Aztec example.
Finally there is the question of the value of breaking the law. A law against anal sex with men would not particularly inconvenience me; a law against vaginal sex with women would be a huge problem. Of course this does not affect whether the law is just or not; either law would be equally unjust. But as a matter of realism about my own psychology, it is not that likely that I would take up arms against a ban that doesn't really affect me. Sad, but there it is.
The justice of a law does not depend on who wrote it; it depends on what it says. "The choice between Good and Evil does not consist of saying, 'Good!' It consists of saying which is which." You cannot escape this judgement, even if your choice, after all consideration, is "God must have a reason for that law, although he has not revealed it to me". That is itself a choice. An evil one, but a choice; so much judgement you cannot avoid.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: Sure. In a world in which it is established that homosexuality is against God's will? Sure.
May I ask you humbly why you think you are morally superior to Muslims who bomb embassies and airplanes, and beat and kill unchaste women on the streets of their cities?
Good question.
First, I think they are incorrect in their beliefs, and I think mine are more rational than theirs.
Secondly, according to my beliefs, we can't issue any capital punishment nowadays. There are no Jewish societies, even in most extreme, who issue capital punishment.
You realize that the way I framed things, you would also agree to issue capital punishment in such a situation.
Kmb said that she wouldn't believe in a God who says homosexuality is immoral. But say God reveals Himself to you and does miracle after miracle, shows you He created the world, whatever.
Are we on the same page with respect to how religionists view moral "tests" and how a good God allows evil in the world?
So then that same God explains to you why He created homosexuals and then outlawed homosexual activity, and places it in the same "test" "evil in a good world" framework.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Holy crap.
(In brighter news, at least this is the kind of thing that got Iran kicked off the UN Women's Council)
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
A god who is not good is not God. Special effects notwithstanding.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Originally posted by Armoth:
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Sure. In a world in which it is established that homosexuality is against God's will? Sure.
All right, just checking. I'll make a point of ensuring that my storm troopers know about your preferred method of execution when the Revolution comes.
Are you telling me you wouldn't abide by God's laws if he up and proved Himself to you?
That would depend on three points. First, do I think the laws just? If the laws are unjust, then I would do my best to avoid them and to overthrow the regime that imposed them; divine or not. And I hope this is also true of you; consider the Aztec gods, for example. The Aztec pantheon demands sacrifice so that they can continue to keep the Sun lit. Would you accept this bargain as just? You might take it as a devil's deal to keep humanity alive; I shall deal with that in a minute. But would you consider it fair that children should die horribly to appease bloodthirsty gods? Would you not work to find a different means of keeping the Sun alive?
Next, there is the issue of credible enforcement. If the god in question set forth unjust laws, but was able to reliably detect my breaking them and punish me, then I might grit my teeth and follow the law, as in the Aztec example.
Finally there is the question of the value of breaking the law. A law against anal sex with men would not particularly inconvenience me; a law against vaginal sex with women would be a huge problem. Of course this does not affect whether the law is just or not; either law would be equally unjust. But as a matter of realism about my own psychology, it is not that likely that I would take up arms against a ban that doesn't really affect me. Sad, but there it is.
The justice of a law does not depend on who wrote it; it depends on what it says. "The choice between Good and Evil does not consist of saying, 'Good!' It consists of saying which is which." You cannot escape this judgement, even if your choice, after all consideration, is "God must have a reason for that law, although he has not revealed it to me". That is itself a choice. An evil one, but a choice; so much judgement you cannot avoid.
Assume the God is SO powerful that He controls every aspect of existence. He created humanity to give them the gift of the human experience, because He ultimately believes it to be a good thing.
Now, you can't overthrow Him. That's ridiculous. He wipes out anyone who tries to overthrow Him. Now what? Say He outlaws gay sex. He outlaws vaginal sex.
From your perspective, you approach it like God is a man, and the gap of perspectives between you and I is HUGE.
From mine, God is amazing. He created the wealth of human experience. And then He asked us to go and enjoy, except He asks that we limit our enjoyment in certain areas out of recognition to Him. Basically turning us from hedonistic, self-interested creatures into creatures who enjoy life with gratitude to the source of it all.
From that perspective, where God created all, there is no sense of entitlement - Oh vaginal sex, that's a right that even God can't take away. From my perspective, that's silly. Because God is the source of all, his commandments really interest me, and a relationship with Him really interests me. So although there are some painful struggles, curbing sexual desires and the like, they are worth it.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: Are you telling me you wouldn't abide by God's laws if he up and proved Himself to you?
I wouldn't abide by such laws if they included stoning people to death, whether for homosexual acts or anything else. I don't quite care whether the deity that wanted me to do so was real or not, or whether I believed he existed or not.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: A god who is not good is not God. Special effects notwithstanding.
Are you sure this is true? Can you not conceive of an evil and terrible god who created the world to torture its inhabitants? And as soon as you violate his will, he winks you out of existence? Would you say that that god isn't god?
Now I'm not saying that that is my god, but I am saying that I do believe God placed burdens on us. And I believe those burdens are just, and even kind - the yolk of heaven - so to speak. As part of the gift of living in this world, we are asked to curb certain desires.
Does it strike anyone as coincidence that Jews circumcise? I mean, they make a covenant with God on their penises. That has a lot of significance.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert:
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: Are you telling me you wouldn't abide by God's laws if he up and proved Himself to you?
I wouldn't abide by such laws if they included stoning people to death, whether for homosexual acts or anything else. I don't quite care whether the deity that wanted me to do so was real or not, or whether I believed he existed or not.
What if He revealed Himself to you, and explained that He doesn't like it. And asked you only to kill others to whom he similarly revealed Himself, and you have absolute knowledge (for argument's sake) that the person has experienced similar revelation and you both know for a fact that God is true and doesn't like homosexuality. What then?
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: What if He revealed Himself to you, and explained that He doesn't like it. And asked you only to kill others to whom he similarly revealed Himself, and you have absolute knowledge (for argument's sake) that the person has experienced similar revelation and you both know for a fact that God is true and doesn't like homosexuality. What then?
I would respond "Commit your own murders."
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Point of order: Jews 'make a covenant' on the penises of their children. I'd be a lot more impressed if it was a voluntary act done to adults, or at least teenagers. No anesthetic, mind you.
You have made a judgement that a creator of the universe has the right to set the laws he likes, and that this is automatically justice. I disagree. When you create autonomous beings, you either treat them as such or you are evil; the fact that you had the power to create them is not relevant. Power is not good nor evil, and does not give the right to set rules; although it may grant the power.
quote:From [my perspective], God is amazing.
Quite so; and what would you do if this were not so? You speak blithely of having vaginal sex forbidden. I suspect that you would not be so blithe about it if you thought it had any prospect of actually happening. Is it not interesting that your god happens to set limits that you can easily deal with, while all the really onerous provisions fall on other people? Justice, indeed.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert:
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: What if He revealed Himself to you, and explained that He doesn't like it. And asked you only to kill others to whom he similarly revealed Himself, and you have absolute knowledge (for argument's sake) that the person has experienced similar revelation and you both know for a fact that God is true and doesn't like homosexuality. What then?
I would respond "Commit your own murders."
You assume that it is murder for God who created the entire universe, including that person to make a law that if you do something He doesn't like, they get the death penalty?
Does God "murder" 88 year old men and women as they die of old age? Or is it a problem only because they are dying because they violated His will?
I mean, for a second, put yourself in this situation, because I honestly don't think you're appreciating the gravity of what a life-changing and perspective-changing event it would be.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:Does God "murder" 88 year old men and women as they die of old age? Or is it a problem only because they are dying because they violated His will?
I would say yes, except if I'm accepting God's existence I'm probably also accepting some kind of afterlife.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: I mean, for a second, put yourself in this situation, because I honestly don't think you're appreciating the gravity of what a life-changing and perspective-changing event it would be.
I'm appreciating it.
If the god in this hypothetical is responsible for killing everyone, then why does he need me to do it for him? The second to gay men become touch each other intimately, why doesn't God make them explode?
Or rather, why not just transform me into a bloodthirsty zealot who would follow any order given to him by a god? I wouldn't be me anymore, but God would get what he wanted.
If God revealed himself to me and told me to kill, I would refuse. Regardless of his god-ness. And if I was punished for such a thing, so be it.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Point of order: Jews 'make a covenant' on the penises of their children. I'd be a lot more impressed if it was a voluntary act done to adults, or at least teenagers. No anesthetic, mind you.
You have made a judgement that a creator of the universe has the right to set the laws he likes, and that this is automatically justice. I disagree. When you create autonomous beings, you either treat them as such or you are evil; the fact that you had the power to create them is not relevant. Power is not good nor evil, and does not give the right to set rules; although it may grant the power.
quote:From [my perspective], God is amazing.
Quite so; and what would you do if this were not so? You speak blithely of having vaginal sex forbidden. I suspect that you would not be so blithe about it if you thought it had any prospect of actually happening. Is it not interesting that your god happens to set limits that you can easily deal with, while all the really onerous provisions fall on other people? Justice, indeed.
Not sure why you need for there to be no anesthetic for it to be impressive. It's the symbolism that is impressive, not the pain endured.
Your assumption is that a creator can't set laws. Can we argue this for a moment? I think that if you created a being that is autonomous, it is a moral imperative for the created to live in gratitude of the creator. Limitations of autonomy are inherently evil? Why is this so?
And lastly, your assumptions about my own moral struggles are unfair. There are plenty of painful limitations on my own life, and your insinuation that I'm happy with the limitations because they only fall on others is utterly false.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold:
quote:Does God "murder" 88 year old men and women as they die of old age? Or is it a problem only because they are dying because they violated His will?
I would say yes, except if I'm accepting God's existence I'm probably also accepting some kind of afterlife.
So it is immoral for God to create any being who isn't immortal?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: A god who is not good is not God. Special effects notwithstanding.
Are you sure this is true? Can you not conceive of an evil and terrible god who created the world to torture its inhabitants? And as soon as you violate his will, he winks you out of existence? Would you say that that god isn't god?
Now I'm not saying that that is my god, but I am saying that I do believe God placed burdens on us. And I believe those burdens are just, and even kind - the yolk of heaven - so to speak. As part of the gift of living in this world, we are asked to curb certain desires.
Does it strike anyone as coincidence that Jews circumcise? I mean, they make a covenant with God on their penises. That has a lot of significance.
Of course, I can conceive of such an entity. I do not believe that is god. Plenty of things could pretend to be god, have powers I don't understand, even (I imagine) create worlds or wink people in and out of existance. Doesn't make them God.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: ... I think that if you created a being that is autonomous, it is a moral imperative for the created to live in gratitude of the creator.
I think this has to be shown. I'm not seeing the moral case that Data has live in gratitude of Dr. Soong for example.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert:
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: I mean, for a second, put yourself in this situation, because I honestly don't think you're appreciating the gravity of what a life-changing and perspective-changing event it would be.
I'm appreciating it.
If the god in this hypothetical is responsible for killing everyone, then why does he need me to do it for him? The second to gay men become touch each other intimately, why doesn't God make them explode?
Or rather, why not just transform me into a bloodthirsty zealot who would follow any order given to him by a god? I wouldn't be me anymore, but God would get what he wanted.
If God revealed himself to me and told me to kill, I would refuse. Regardless of his god-ness. And if I was punished for such a thing, so be it.
God wants to build a relationship with you, and with the people He revealed Himself to. In order for your relationship to be worth anything, it needs to be earned. He created you to be autonomous so that you could actually work on your relationship and not be a computer program (i.e. an angel). As such, He created you with competing desires, and asks of you that you express your love of God by choosing the desires that are congruous with His. That's why He doesn't transform you into things.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: ... I think that if you created a being that is autonomous, it is a moral imperative for the created to live in gratitude of the creator.
I think this has to be shown. I'm not seeing the moral case that Data has live in gratitude of Dr. Soong for example.
Or to worship him or think Dr. Soong is god.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by Armoth:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: A god who is not good is not God. Special effects notwithstanding.
Are you sure this is true? Can you not conceive of an evil and terrible god who created the world to torture its inhabitants? And as soon as you violate his will, he winks you out of existence? Would you say that that god isn't god?
Now I'm not saying that that is my god, but I am saying that I do believe God placed burdens on us. And I believe those burdens are just, and even kind - the yolk of heaven - so to speak. As part of the gift of living in this world, we are asked to curb certain desires.
Does it strike anyone as coincidence that Jews circumcise? I mean, they make a covenant with God on their penises. That has a lot of significance.
Of course, I can conceive of such an entity. I do not believe that is god. Plenty of things could pretend to be god, have powers I don't understand, even (I imagine) create worlds or wink people in and out of existance. Doesn't make them God.
Ok. This happens a bunch when you and i discuss morality. I don't know how to bring the conversation beyond this point. I'm not really sure what the hang up is or how to help you see my perspective or to see yours.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth:
quote:Originally posted by Javert:
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: Are you telling me you wouldn't abide by God's laws if he up and proved Himself to you?
I wouldn't abide by such laws if they included stoning people to death, whether for homosexual acts or anything else. I don't quite care whether the deity that wanted me to do so was real or not, or whether I believed he existed or not.
What if He revealed Himself to you, and explained that He doesn't like it. And asked you only to kill others to whom he similarly revealed Himself, and you have absolute knowledge (for argument's sake) that the person has experienced similar revelation and you both know for a fact that God is true and doesn't like homosexuality. What then?
Speaking for myself, as an atheist, I would treat this situation pretty much identically to one where an incredibly powerful alien race descends to Earth and commands, among other things, that left-handed children be flayed.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: ... I think that if you created a being that is autonomous, it is a moral imperative for the created to live in gratitude of the creator.
I think this has to be shown. I'm not seeing the moral case that Data has live in gratitude of Dr. Soong for example.
I don't know who that is. But I think it's pretty simple. You, everything, wouldn't exist without God. You enjoy living. So you owe a debt of gratitude to God.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: God wants to build a relationship with you, and with the people He revealed Himself to. In order for your relationship to be worth anything, it needs to be earned. He created you to be autonomous so that you could actually work on your relationship and not be a computer program (i.e. an angel). As such, He created you with competing desires, and asks of you that you express your love of God by choosing the desires that are congruous with His. That's why He doesn't transform you into things.
Then, being autonomous, I choose not to have a relationship with a being that wants me to kill for it. If he wants a relationship, he can stop wanting to kill people for homosexuality or other non-harmful actions.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by Juxtapose:
quote:Originally posted by Armoth:
quote:Originally posted by Javert:
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: Are you telling me you wouldn't abide by God's laws if he up and proved Himself to you?
I wouldn't abide by such laws if they included stoning people to death, whether for homosexual acts or anything else. I don't quite care whether the deity that wanted me to do so was real or not, or whether I believed he existed or not.
What if He revealed Himself to you, and explained that He doesn't like it. And asked you only to kill others to whom he similarly revealed Himself, and you have absolute knowledge (for argument's sake) that the person has experienced similar revelation and you both know for a fact that God is true and doesn't like homosexuality. What then?
Speaking for myself, as an atheist, I would treat this situation pretty much identically to one where an incredibly powerful alien race descends to Earth and commands, among other things, that left-handed children be flayed.
I assume you're atheist because you're a rational person. Assume that science proves that there is a God and that that God proves Himself to you in a number of ways.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:It's the symbolism that is impressive, not the pain endured.
Pff. The symbolism of sacrificing someone else's body parts impresses me as much as the symbolism of crucifying someone innocent for the sins of the guilty.
quote:Your assumption is that a creator can't set laws. Can we argue this for a moment?
A creator may certainly set laws. But this does not make them just laws. If I make a world, and populate it with thinking, feeling beings, and set their laws, are those laws automatically just? Of course not. You persist in judging god-set laws differently because they are connected to this power word, 'God', which you do not allow yourself to feel negative emotions about. A law is a law; its source does not matter, only its justice matters.
quote:I think that if you created a being that is autonomous, it is a moral imperative for the created to live in gratitude of the creator.
Gratitude has limits. If I create conscious beings for use as torture toys, to indulge my sadistic desire to inflict pain, are they still obliged to feel grateful to me for their existence?
quote:And lastly, your assumptions about my own moral struggles are unfair. There are plenty of painful limitations on my own life, and your insinuation that I'm happy with the limitations because they only fall on others is utterly false.
I don't believe you.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: I don't know who that is. But I think it's pretty simple. You, everything, wouldn't exist without God. You enjoy living. So you owe a debt of gratitude to God.
I owe a debt of gratitude to my parents as well. I won't kill for them either, except in the extreme possibility of defending their lives. So, unless homosexuals are killing this hypothetical deity...of course, how would he be a deity if he could be killed?
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert:
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: God wants to build a relationship with you, and with the people He revealed Himself to. In order for your relationship to be worth anything, it needs to be earned. He created you to be autonomous so that you could actually work on your relationship and not be a computer program (i.e. an angel). As such, He created you with competing desires, and asks of you that you express your love of God by choosing the desires that are congruous with His. That's why He doesn't transform you into things.
Then, being autonomous, I choose not to have a relationship with a being that wants me to kill for it. If he wants a relationship, he can stop wanting to kill people for homosexuality or other non-harmful actions.
Are you married?
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: Are you married?
Nope.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Armoth, I do understand your perspective. I just think that it is wrong. I have an advantage in that I am not tied to understanding God the way Moses or Abraham would have. And I have read a lot of science fiction. God is bigger than you imagine.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: I don't know who that is. But I think it's pretty simple. You, everything, wouldn't exist without God. You enjoy living. So you owe a debt of gratitude to God.
Ok, if you don't know that example (seriously???), human-form replicators and the ancients? R2D2 and some anonymous Naboo person? Replicants and Tyrell? Cylons and Zoe?
I'm just not seeing it as obvious that there should be gratitude involved in any of these cases.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Juxtapose:
quote:Originally posted by Armoth:
quote:Originally posted by Javert:
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: Are you telling me you wouldn't abide by God's laws if he up and proved Himself to you?
I wouldn't abide by such laws if they included stoning people to death, whether for homosexual acts or anything else. I don't quite care whether the deity that wanted me to do so was real or not, or whether I believed he existed or not.
What if He revealed Himself to you, and explained that He doesn't like it. And asked you only to kill others to whom he similarly revealed Himself, and you have absolute knowledge (for argument's sake) that the person has experienced similar revelation and you both know for a fact that God is true and doesn't like homosexuality. What then?
Speaking for myself, as an atheist, I would treat this situation pretty much identically to one where an incredibly powerful alien race descends to Earth and commands, among other things, that left-handed children be flayed.
Speaking as a Catholic, so would I.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Are you married?
Is it likely that Javert would marry someone who required that he kill people? You are presumably heading for some sort of necessity-of-compromise argument, wherein any relationship worth having needs a bit of sacrifice. True, but come now! There's a difference between not leaving the toilet seat up, and going out to kill random strangers. Can we please recognise some difference of degree, here? Gratitude, likewise, is a fine thing but has its limits.
Further, what compromises is your god making for this relationship?
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:It's the symbolism that is impressive, not the pain endured.
Pff. The symbolism of sacrificing someone else's body parts impresses me as much as the symbolism of crucifying someone innocent for the sins of the guilty.
quote:Your assumption is that a creator can't set laws. Can we argue this for a moment?
A creator may certainly set laws. But this does not make them just laws. If I make a world, and populate it with thinking, feeling beings, and set their laws, are those laws automatically just? Of course not. You persist in judging god-set laws differently because they are connected to this power word, 'God', which you do not allow yourself to feel negative emotions about. A law is a law; its source does not matter, only its justice matters.
quote:I think that if you created a being that is autonomous, it is a moral imperative for the created to live in gratitude of the creator.
Gratitude has limits. If I create conscious beings for use as torture toys, to indulge my sadistic desire to inflict pain, are they still obliged to feel grateful to me for their existence?
quote:And lastly, your assumptions about my own moral struggles are unfair. There are plenty of painful limitations on my own life, and your insinuation that I'm happy with the limitations because they only fall on others is utterly false.
I don't believe you.
I consider negative feeling towards a god. If a god rules through punishment and terror and sadism, I'd only be interested in serving him to the extent to which I could avoid pain.
However, I believe that as long as I have a desire to live, and I enjoy life, that certain commandments that curb my autonomy for the sake of gratitude to the creator are indeed moral. Once it moves to an imbalance to the point where I no longer am interested in life, then I have no imperative to be gracious.
And your lack of belief about my own struggles - we'll just have to leave it at that. I can't exactly convince you unless you were to come to know me better.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Once it moves to an imbalance to the point where I no longer am interested in life, then I have no imperative to be gracious.
Very good. So you agree then that the laws which a god may justly set are not completely arbitrary? It is not a case purely of might making right, but of a debt owed which has reasonable limits. Is that correct?
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Are you married?
Is it likely that Javert would marry someone who required that he kill people? You are presumably heading for some sort of necessity-of-compromise argument, wherein any relationship worth having needs a bit of sacrifice. True, but come now! There's a difference between not leaving the toilet seat up, and going out to kill random strangers. Can we please recognise some difference of degree, here? Gratitude, likewise, is a fine thing but has its limits.
Further, what compromises is your god making for this relationship?
Forget leaving the toilet seat up. What right does your spouse have in limiting your autonomy to have an affair? And if she is annoyed by it, then she should get over it, because you aren't hurting anyone.
Gratitude does have its limits. It is limited to the point where the gift you have been given turns out to be pretty lousy.
Surely we can agree that if God made you eat only kosher, there is plenty to be gracious about. What if he makes you be vegan, or is that too much to flip the balance for you? Forbidding certain types of sexual relationships still leaves the balance of gratitude on God's side. And so forth, until it flips, and then you have an evil and terrible god whom you simply have to avoid so he doesn't kill you, or maybe you want to be killed, as long as you aren't tortured for eternity, etc.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
Armoth, If science were to somehow prove that it really really was God, I would consider that information important tactically, but unimportant morally. Anyway, you already have your hands full and my points are mostly being made for me. Thanks for taking the time to respond.
Kmbboots, Cool, we can start a club against the flaying of left-handed children. Got any catchy names?
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by Juxtapose: Armoth, If science were to somehow prove that it really really was God, I would consider that information important tactically, but unimportant morally. Anyway, you already have your hands full and my points are mostly being made for me. Thanks for taking the time to respond.
Kmbboots, Cool, we can start a club against the flaying of left-handed children. Got any catchy names?
Well I appreciate the dialogue. This forum is always good for making me consider and reconsider my own points. I hope others can also see things from my perspective. I imagine that other, uh, religious extremists, might share their perspectives a little differently.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Once it moves to an imbalance to the point where I no longer am interested in life, then I have no imperative to be gracious.
Very good. So you agree then that the laws which a god may justly set are not completely arbitrary? It is not a case purely of might making right, but of a debt owed which has reasonable limits. Is that correct?
Yes.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:What right does your spouse have in limiting your autonomy to have an affair?
The right that I freely granted her, in exchange for my right likewise to limit her! Come now. This is a silly argument which you cannot really believe; do try to keep some sort of equivalence in your comparisons.
quote:
quote:Very good. So you agree then that the laws which a god may justly set are not completely arbitrary? It is not a case purely of might making right, but of a debt owed which has reasonable limits. Is that correct?
Yes.
Good. Then our argument is not over whether any restriction whatsoever can be just, but whether the particular restrictions that your god is said to impose are just. Right?
Suppose for a moment that your enjoyment of life can be measured on a scale from negative to positive 100, where any negative number means you want it to end. Your assertion seems to be that any restriction which does not move the number into the negatives is fair, and that you're still obliged to be grateful. Is that correct?
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:So it is immoral for God to create any being who isn't immortal?
If you have the ability to create an immortal being, then choosing to create a being who isn't immortal who doesn't want to die, yes I think that's inherently morally wrong.
If God isn't truly omnipotent there's a lot more wiggle room. If he only has a finite amount of lifespan to hand out to people, or if he simply can't create immortals, or can only create a limited number of immortals, that would certainly be acceptable.
I would also note, however, that I don't necessarily judge an omnipotent being as EVIL for not being perfect. Humans (myself included) do a lot of things that are blatantly evil when looked at on an absolute scale. But I don't judge humans on an absolute scale because it's not productive.
On the same note, I can forgive a God for having a hard time truly empathizing with and doing everything he can to help people who are so far beneath him that they might as well be ants. But I also cannot call that God perfect, and would not worship him as such.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I'll also note that the argument can be made that it's MORE immoral for God not to make anyone rather than to make a bunch of mortals. (I disagree with the argument but it's a fundamental difference of axioms that I can't prove). That doesn't absolve God of creating someone fated to die though.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:What right does your spouse have in limiting your autonomy to have an affair?
The right that I freely granted her, in exchange for my right likewise to limit her! Come now. This is a silly argument which you cannot really believe; do try to keep some sort of equivalence in your comparisons.
quote:
quote:Very good. So you agree then that the laws which a god may justly set are not completely arbitrary? It is not a case purely of might making right, but of a debt owed which has reasonable limits. Is that correct?
Yes.
Good. Then our argument is not over whether any restriction whatsoever can be just, but whether the particular restrictions that your god is said to impose are just. Right?
Suppose for a moment that your enjoyment of life can be measured on a scale from negative to positive 100, where any negative number means you want it to end. Your assertion seems to be that any restriction which does not move the number into the negatives is fair, and that you're still obliged to be grateful. Is that correct?
On the latter point - yes.
Put the two points together and it shouldn't matter that it was an exchange of rights and obligations. My assertion is that as long as the moral gratitude imperative exists - limitations can still be moral. The proof is that you agreed to let your wife limit you - you don't think that is immoral. So limitations are not immoral - the price of the limitations can sometimes be so burdensome that they are immoral, but otherwise, as long as the balance sheet isn't in the red, we're all good.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:you agreed
Ding! I agreed, precisely! When did I sign up for your god's covenant? There is no symmetry between an agreement between adults, and a fiat from on high.
quote:So limitations are not immoral - the price of the limitations can sometimes be so burdensome that they are immoral
Very good, now we are at least within the realm of rational discussion. Let us now look at the part of the scale that goes from 0 to 100; 0, I remind you, is where life is just about worth living - just one more bad thing and you give up and shoot yourself. Is it really fair for a god to create limitations that would place your life at zero? What if he creates limitations that put your life at 80, or even 100, but someone else's at 0? Is this just?
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:you agreed
Ding! I agreed, precisely! When did I sign up for your god's covenant? There is no symmetry between an agreement between adults, and a fiat from on high.
quote:So limitations are not immoral - the price of the limitations can sometimes be so burdensome that they are immoral
Very good, now we are at least within the realm of rational discussion. Let us now look at the part of the scale that goes from 0 to 100; 0, I remind you, is where life is just about worth living - just one more bad thing and you give up and shoot yourself. Is it really fair for a god to create limitations that would place your life at zero? What if he creates limitations that put your life at 80, or even 100, but someone else's at 0? Is this just?
First, before we continue. Don't talk down to me. No more "Dings" "Come nows" or "We're finally beginning to speak rationally."
Your agreeing isn't necessary. Your agreeing is just a proxy to determine value. If we can objectively determine value, your agreement isn't necessary.
As for imbalances - yes. That is immoral. My understanding is that God balances it all out in the afterlife.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold:
quote:So it is immoral for God to create any being who isn't immortal?
If you have the ability to create an immortal being, then choosing to create a being who isn't immortal who doesn't want to die, yes I think that's inherently morally wrong.
If God isn't truly omnipotent there's a lot more wiggle room. If he only has a finite amount of lifespan to hand out to people, or if he simply can't create immortals, or can only create a limited number of immortals, that would certainly be acceptable.
I would also note, however, that I don't necessarily judge an omnipotent being as EVIL for not being perfect. Humans (myself included) do a lot of things that are blatantly evil when looked at on an absolute scale. But I don't judge humans on an absolute scale because it's not productive.
On the same note, I can forgive a God for having a hard time truly empathizing with and doing everything he can to help people who are so far beneath him that they might as well be ants. But I also cannot call that God perfect, and would not worship him as such.
::Contemplating this::
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:I think a big problem with the picking and choosing approach is that you have to believe the whole thing is Divine in the first place.
With Christianity/Judaism - it's difficult to say that God made a mistake and changed His laws. I understand if Jews were bad followers, so God asked others to step in - but to change the rules? Seems weird.
Say you don't like the fact that the Bible says homosexuality is an abomination. So you pretend it isn't in the Bible. But that's a big problem - how can you say that it is divine and yet that part was wrong?
So you can allege that there were problems with transmission and it was corrupted. But if that is the case, then why believe it is true in the first place? It gets less "scientific" and "rational" if you begin to undermine the tradition so that you can pick the parts of the Bible you like.
It's difficult.
With the discussion having devolved to Armoth defending his beliefs to everyone, I wanted to go back and say that I agree with his original post.
That's not to say I am giving Armoth's beliefs a pass, I think they are scary and problematic in their own way. I just also think his criticism for this kind of "pick and choose" religious thought is also spot on.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Don't talk down to me.
Then do not make childish arguments.
quote:Your agreeing isn't necessary. Your agreeing is just a proxy to determine value. If we can objectively determine value, your agreement isn't necessary.
Wrong. The agreement also has value in itself, as an expression of my autonomy. If an arrangement is made without my consent, then my autonomy is violated even if that arrangement genuinely is good for me; even if, upon knowledge of all the facts, I would indeed consent. If I do not have the genuine power to say no, then I am not an autonomous being, I am a meat puppet. And what is more, who is this 'we'? Why should I trust your god to 'objectively' determine my values? The very point at issue is whether I trust this god to run my life or not; to say that it gets to set the rules is immoral right there.
quote:As for imbalances - yes. That is immoral. My understanding is that God balances it all out in the afterlife.
It follows then that a homosexual who resisted his urges all his life would have a better afterlife than you, no? With, presumably, pie; or perhaps even jam and crumpets. Again, however, the injustice arises from the lack of agreement. If someone agreed to have a tougher mortal life in exchange for a better afterlife, that's one thing. But there is no agreement, and thus no autonomy.
Further, your god 'wants a relationship', and if you don't have one, what happens? You cease to exist, or alternatively are tortured forever, right? Now it's one thing not to have a relationship of equals, but this is ridiculous. It's no relationship at all when one party can either try to follow the rules the other sets, or else die! That's tyranny, not friendship. Or do you assert that your god is willing that people should turn away from it, and nonetheless have some sort of afterlife that doesn't involve actual torture? A parent may reasonably set the rules for a child, for some time, until the child is old enough to live by itself. But this does not extend to eternity; children grow up, and may then, if they choose, move away and cut off contact with their parents, without dying for it.
"Heaven weeps, but free will is sacred"; where is the 'relationship' when the lesser party has a gun held to its head?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xavier:
quote:I think a big problem with the picking and choosing approach is that you have to believe the whole thing is Divine in the first place.
With Christianity/Judaism - it's difficult to say that God made a mistake and changed His laws. I understand if Jews were bad followers, so God asked others to step in - but to change the rules? Seems weird.
Say you don't like the fact that the Bible says homosexuality is an abomination. So you pretend it isn't in the Bible. But that's a big problem - how can you say that it is divine and yet that part was wrong?
So you can allege that there were problems with transmission and it was corrupted. But if that is the case, then why believe it is true in the first place? It gets less "scientific" and "rational" if you begin to undermine the tradition so that you can pick the parts of the Bible you like.
It's difficult.
With the discussion having devolved to Armoth defending his beliefs to everyone, I wanted to go back and say that I agree with his original post.
That's not to say I am giving Armoth's beliefs a pass, I think they are scary and problematic in their own way. I just also think his criticism for this kind of "pick and choose" religious thought is also spot on.
It is not that simple. There are methods to the "picking and choosing" it is a whole field of study. The Bible is not all one seamless book; it is a collection of sacred writings spanning centuries. One has to take into account who was doing the writing, what the audience was, what the context was, what literary conventions were common, what the purpose was in writing whatever it was (rules, letters, poems, stories) and many other factors. Once you abandon the odd idea that God dictated it word for word, it is perfectly reasonable to give different weight to different parts of the Bible and to read them differently.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:Then do not make childish arguments.
No. Just no. Frankly, I was put off by the way you were talking down to him and I agreed with all the points you were making. Honestly there is no excuse for you to communicate the way you have in this thread.
I can at least understand your logic when you call people delusional or ignorant or whatever. At least that's factually accurate from your perspective (and often, from mine as well). And I get that you feel society shouldn't tolerate ridiculous arguments or feel obligated to respect them for the sake of argument. (In some ways I think you're right, but in a very complicated way that I don't think you fully appreciate)
But the "ding!s" and the "finaly!s" are not necessary for that. They serve NO purpose other than to belittle the other participant. Anyone other than Armoth problem would have given up on the conversation (at least as a serious attempt at discourse).
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:Once you abandon the odd idea that God dictated it word for word, it is perfectly reasonable to give different weight to different parts of the Bible and to read them differently.
I agree with this in principle, but in practice the picking and choosing I usually see is entirely based on what the person picking and choosing likes rather than on what is factually probable.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold:
quote:Once you abandon the odd idea that God dictated it word for word, it is perfectly reasonable to give different weight to different parts of the Bible and to read them differently.
I agree with this in principle, but in practice the picking and choosing I usually see is entirely based on what the person picking and choosing likes rather than on what is factually probable.
Like what? I am happy (as far as my meager knowledge of Biblical exegeis goes) to explore specifices with you.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Basically I just haven't met someone who cited "this section of the bible is unlikely to be needed to be taken seriously because of these theological reasons" as their reason for not believing you should stone people to death for cursing their parents. They just mutter "oh, they were living in a different time," without making any effort to explain why, if we're ignoring THAT portion of scripture, we're still taking some other portion seriously.
They may well be people who HAVE made a more in depth analysis of the writings, I just haven't met them.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
They are out there. If you are really interested in this, there are a couple of books I could recommend. For some of the "big ticket" issues like slavery and homosexuality, I would suggest reading "The Good Book" by Peter Gomes.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: Forget leaving the toilet seat up. What right does your spouse have in limiting your autonomy to have an affair? And if she is annoyed by it, then she should get over it, because you aren't hurting anyone.
It's not about my potential spouse's rights. It's about the promise I would have made to be faithful. I have made no such promise to any hypothetical deity. And I would never form a relationship with someone who would desire me to kill someone, want to kill someone themselves, or want to kill and/or torture me for not obeying them.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Assume that science proves that there is a God and that that God proves Himself to you in a number of ways.
Armoth, if we weren't talking about God -- if we were talking about, say, superpowerful alien overlords who as it turns out bred humans to be a slave race, but left us alone here for a few hundred thousand years to ripen as a species before returning to collect us -- would you assert that we owe them a debt?
I submit that a created being -- who at no point consented to that creation -- owes nothing to its creator: that the act of creating is meant to please the creator, not the creation, and is therefore a selfish act which fulfills a desire of the creator. The created, prior to existence, have no desires to be fulfilled by their creation.
This is not to say that the worship of a God is necessarily wrong or pointless. Rather, I'm saying that worshipping someone because He created you is silly.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Raymond, try "Rescuing the Bible From Fundamentalists" by Bishop John Shelby Spong. At the time, it was the best history of how the Bible was written and collected, written by someone who still sincerely believed in God and His glory, if not biblical inerrancy.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote:I submit that a created being -- who at no point consented to that creation -- owes nothing to its creator: that the act of creating is meant to please the creator, not the creation, and is therefore a selfish act which fulfills a desire of the creator.
Do you feel this way about parent/child relationships?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Yes. A child owes a parent nothing for its birth.
However, unlike God, we actually have relationships with our parents.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I don't actually think Tom's statement necessarily holds. Creating is not an inherently debt-inducing act. It depends on how much effort it was to create and what their intent was. Certainly creating will usually be at least somewhat selfish (insofar as the creator wants to have a creation), but it's entirely possible to have a creator who truly believed creating sentient beings was good for the beings themselves and wanted the best for them.
But whether or not a creation "owes" their creator anything depends entirely on how much effort creator put into maintaining the creation's wellbeing.
I think children owe their parents not for life itself, but for all the effort the parents subsequently put into raising, feeding, sheltering and teaching the child. (I'd say the effort/stress of the pregnancy itself certainly counts here, although how much it counts depends on the motivations or lack thereof of the pregnancy and things like whether the mother took care of herself during it).
Parents do sometimes need to punish their kids. And during the early childhood, the kid will not necessarily understand why. During this period, I don't think the kids inherently have an OBLIGATION to accept the punishment, because they are lack the abstract reasoning necessary to understand it.
As the kids' ability to understand increases, the parent has an obligation to explain better. The child's obligation to try and understand and live by their parents' rules depends on the effort a parent makes to create fair rules and explain them properly.
If a religion claims that the last time God openly communicated with humanity was thousands of years ago, when the collective human reasoning was infantile compared to what it is today, that says to me that God is basically a bad parent.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote:But whether or not a creation "owes" their creator anything depends entirely on how much effort creator put into maintaining the creation's wellbeing.
I agree with this. I think even beyond the relationships we have with our parents, there is some level of expected gratitude. For example, I think that gratitude is earned by mothers that carry a child to term in a healthy manner and then give their child up for adoption.
If a God did exist, I'm not opposed to the idea that some level of gratitude might be appropriate. I don't think that that gratitude extends to subservience or worship though.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold:
quote:Then do not make childish arguments.
No. Just no. Frankly, I was put off by the way you were talking down to him and I agreed with all the points you were making. Honestly there is no excuse for you to communicate the way you have in this thread.
I can at least understand your logic when you call people delusional or ignorant or whatever. At least that's factually accurate from your perspective (and often, from mine as well). And I get that you feel society shouldn't tolerate ridiculous arguments or feel obligated to respect them for the sake of argument. (In some ways I think you're right, but in a very complicated way that I don't think you fully appreciate)
But the "ding!s" and the "finaly!s" are not necessary for that. They serve NO purpose other than to belittle the other participant. Anyone other than Armoth problem would have given up on the conversation (at least as a serious attempt at discourse).
Gotta second this. Armoth, major respect for standing up to this.
The atheists are making some good points, though. I don't really feel the need to join in; much of what I'd want to say is already being said.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Assume that science proves that there is a God and that that God proves Himself to you in a number of ways.
Armoth, if we weren't talking about God -- if we were talking about, say, superpowerful alien overlords who as it turns out bred humans to be a slave race, but left us alone here for a few hundred thousand years to ripen as a species before returning to collect us -- would you assert that we owe them a debt?
I submit that a created being -- who at no point consented to that creation -- owes nothing to its creator: that the act of creating is meant to please the creator, not the creation, and is therefore a selfish act which fulfills a desire of the creator. The created, prior to existence, have no desires to be fulfilled by their creation.
This is not to say that the worship of a God is necessarily wrong or pointless. Rather, I'm saying that worshipping someone because He created you is silly.
Here's the thing: With God, I believe that everything He does is for our benefit. The limitations, the struggles - I'm a very big fan of the Worthing Saga for this reason - because it is so essential in explaining that light shines only in the darkest of places. That the evil that happens is actually a form of good, especially assuming an afterlife. Classic Jewish sources refer to this world as a "corridor" into the eternal world to come.
I believe we owe the aliens a debt of gratitude commensurate to our desire to live under the conditions they place us in.
Say for instance, the aliens had a conversation with us before creating us:
Aliens: Armoth, we shall only create you if you serve us butler for us. Armoth: Will I enjoy serving as butler? Or will I be in pain? Aliens: You probably won't enjoy serving as butlers, but you're off on the weekends, and you'll have a good time. Armoth: Okay, great. I'm down.
Would it be immoral for me to break that agreement? They don't HAVE to create me. They created me under certain conditions.
With God, it is even more interesting because He argues He is creating us for our own sakes every bit as much as He is creating us for His sake. Plugged into the worthing saga model - the stuggles are meant to produce the nobility and sacrifice that comes along with obedience to He who deserves obedience, etc.
The idea is - once you are created, you are biased, and you think about it like - hey, I'm autonomous - limiting me is oppressive. But I think it's totally moral to uphold that bargain.
---------------
"But hey!" "Armoth!" "We never made such a bargain!"
There is a concept in Jewish law of "acquiring or meriting something on behalf of someone when they are not there" - loosely - when something is objectively beneficial, you should assume that the person agrees to it. You don't need their specific assent. (complicated as to when this applies, etc.)
However, that's why I say you don't need to explicitly agree - that's not the point. As long as you would prefer to exist and benefit, and it can be assumed that you would, then the limitations placed upon you by your creator are moral. I argue that you have a moral responsibility to carry out those obligations.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by Xavier:
quote:I think a big problem with the picking and choosing approach is that you have to believe the whole thing is Divine in the first place.
With Christianity/Judaism - it's difficult to say that God made a mistake and changed His laws. I understand if Jews were bad followers, so God asked others to step in - but to change the rules? Seems weird.
Say you don't like the fact that the Bible says homosexuality is an abomination. So you pretend it isn't in the Bible. But that's a big problem - how can you say that it is divine and yet that part was wrong?
So you can allege that there were problems with transmission and it was corrupted. But if that is the case, then why believe it is true in the first place? It gets less "scientific" and "rational" if you begin to undermine the tradition so that you can pick the parts of the Bible you like.
It's difficult.
With the discussion having devolved to Armoth defending his beliefs to everyone, I wanted to go back and say that I agree with his original post.
That's not to say I am giving Armoth's beliefs a pass, I think they are scary and problematic in their own way. I just also think his criticism for this kind of "pick and choose" religious thought is also spot on.
It is not that simple. There are methods to the "picking and choosing" it is a whole field of study. The Bible is not all one seamless book; it is a collection of sacred writings spanning centuries. One has to take into account who was doing the writing, what the audience was, what the context was, what literary conventions were common, what the purpose was in writing whatever it was (rules, letters, poems, stories) and many other factors. Once you abandon the odd idea that God dictated it word for word, it is perfectly reasonable to give different weight to different parts of the Bible and to read them differently.
Once you abandon it word for word, why believe in it at all? What is your source for its truth? We've already argued how compelling the mass revelation is, and the argument everyone brings to undermine it is the evolution of the Bible. I, Lisa, others dispute this - but if you concede to the Bible's evolution, what is your source for its veracity? Perhaps it was merely an evolution of myths mixed with good morals.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: If a religion claims that the last time God openly communicated with humanity was thousands of years ago, when the collective human reasoning was infantile compared to what it is today, that says to me that God is basically a bad parent.
Or perhaps, our expectations/obligations are not as high.
(Again, I have never stoned anyone for homosexuality or adultery, nor do I feel the desire to. Indeed I have very much love for the homosexuals and adulterers in my life).
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:We've already argued how compelling the mass revelation is, and the argument everyone brings to undermine it is the evolution of the Bible.
Uh, no. That's far from the most relevant argument that was made about the claim of the mass revelation as evidence.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I'm a very big fan of the Worthing Saga for this reason - because it is so essential in explaining that light shines only in the darkest of places.
Incidentally, The Worthing Saga strikes me as an excellent example of the dangers of asserting myth as truth; it is an allegory that seeks to justify a certain point of view, but contains nothing that can be called "truth" with any certainty.
It is a myth written with a goal. In the same way, I am unsurprised that Jewish tradition, over thousands of years, has come up with a "law" that explains why you'd owe something to your hypothetical God. That does not, however, give me a reason to regard that law as sensible or valid.
quote:We've already argued how compelling the mass revelation is, and the argument everyone brings to undermine it is the evolution of the Bible.
For the record, that was merely one of seven arguments I brought to undermine that "compelling" revelation.
quote:Again, I have never stoned anyone for homosexuality or adultery, nor do I feel the desire to.
But your desires are irrelevant in this hypothetical, as God has told you that this person should be stoned and, after all, you owe Him.
Posted by shadowland (Member # 12366) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: However, I believe that as long as I have a desire to live, and I enjoy life, that certain commandments that curb my autonomy for the sake of gratitude to the creator are indeed moral
Ok, that's fine if you are willing to curb your own autonomy out of gratitude towards your god, but what about when god's commands require you to curb the autonomy of someone else? You already know that this god is able to know who the sinners are and who deserves to be put to death. And you know that he can carry out his own justice/punishment quickly, efficiently, and perfectly, as he has often done in the past. So is it really fair of him to expect flawed humanity to try to imperfectly interpret his will and punishments, and then to carry them out for him, especially on matters that require killing someone in a most painful manner?
You've stated that you wouldn't stone someone to death, but why would god ever expect anyone to put someone to death in his name? Shouldn't matters involving life and death be between god and the individual and his own scale of gratitude and perceived benefits rather than involving some third party that isn't going to understand the whole situation? The whole process seems so flawed and inefficient, not something I would expect from a perfect, benevolent god.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:So you can allege that there were problems with transmission and it was corrupted. But if that is the case, then why believe it is true in the first place? It gets less "scientific" and "rational" if you begin to undermine the tradition so that you can pick the parts of the Bible you like.
I don't think there's anything irrational about trusting a source that's often correct but sometimes imperfect. I trust things I read on Wikipedia, for instance, despite the fact that I am certain that it is sometimes wrong. Is it irrational of me to do so?
Incidently, nobody here has suggested "picking the parts of the Bible you like." If someone translated part of the Bible to suggest that Chipotle is what God said we should eat at Communion, I'd certainly like to follow such a rule, but I wouldn't accept it as the truth because it definitely seems false.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:I don't think there's anything irrational about trusting a source that's often correct but sometimes imperfect.
In what way is your religion "often correct"?
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Religion and the Bible are two different things. The line of reasoning being that if every word of the Bible wasn't dictated by God then there's room for human interpreation and thus human error. As the Bible is a collection of stories about interactions between us and God (rather than just a long monologue from God) this beleive isn't exactly coming out of left field. People have these experiences, being either personal, one-on-one type events or with vast groups, they remember them and then write them down. Because they're are best description of how God interacts with us they're invaluable and the basis for understanding but because they're the stories as recorded by people they are not error free.
Not the only way to look at it but there's definitely plenty of middle ground between 'The Bible is word-for-word perfect' and 'The whole thing's a fraud', which I believe the idea being addressed.
Hobbes Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:In what way is your religion "often correct"?
In that most things it has taught me have turned out to be true, particularly the things most emphasized.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hobbes: Not the only way to look at it but there's definitely plenty of middle ground between 'The Bible is word-for-word perfect' and 'The whole thing's a fraud', which I believe the idea being addressed.
Hobbes
I would have to agree. I'm definitely not at either extreme. I'm of the opinion that some of the events took place, a lot was based on real events, we have no good reason to believe the supernatural events took place, some of the stories are beautiful, some are strange, some give great moral lessons and some give horrible ones.
All in all, a book that should be read, if nothing else.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: In that most things it has taught me have turned out to be true, particularly the things most emphasized.
In what way are you using the word 'true'? Does it mean factually accurate? Effective? Satisfying?
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:In that most things it has taught me have turned out to be true, particularly the the things most emphasized.
I think he was hoping for more specifics. What things have turned out to be true, and how have you verified their truth?
Edit: also, seconding Javert's "how are you defining true?"
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
The thing is, religion is more than a list of rules; it's an epistemology. It provides not just a list of things to do and not do, but also a list of reasons why those things should be done -- and, its adherents insist, is most valuable precisely because it provides those reasons.
So consider a religion whose doctrines include things like handwashing before surgery, the avoidance of excessively sugary drinks, forgiveness of wrongdoing, and regular exercise. All of these things are in fact good things and should be promoted.
But is that religion "true?" What if, say, it also has as a doctrine that little dogs under ten pounds of weight should be kicked in the face whenever they are encountered? What if another doctrine is that under no circumstances should someone be permitted to read any single book longer than 100 pages in length?
And, most importantly, consider if the "reason" for all these things, as put forward by the religion, is merely this: "God says these are good things to do."
How can one, using religion, evaluate these recommendations? For that matter, how can one use the outcome of those recommendations to evaluate the religion itself?
---------
By contrast, when a epistemology of actual value makes a recommendation, it is underlain by a falsifiable prediction. "Wash your hands before surgery," says such an epistemology, "so that the people you cut open do not contract additional and unnecessary illnesses." "Kick small dogs in the face," it says, "because if you do not, they will eat all your bacon when you aren't looking." And you can test these predictions on their own terms without discarding the methods by which you evaluate the individual predictions.
Religion, as an epistemology, offers none of that.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert:
quote:Originally posted by Hobbes: [qb]Not the only way to look at it but there's definitely plenty of middle ground between 'The Bible is word-for-word perfect' and 'The whole thing's a fraud', which I believe the idea being addressed.
Hobbes
I would have to agree. I'm definitely not at either extreme. I'm of the opinion that some of the events took place, a lot was based on real events, we have no good reason to believe the supernatural events took place[...]
Well, you don't.
Every time this discussion crops up about if the Judeo-Christian God actually exists He's a pretty awful guy not worth following I always feel like the non-thiests keep dragging God into a Godless world. Kind of the same way a Christian might drag Godlessness into a Christian world with comments like: "but if you don't believe in God, who will save you from Hell?"
If we start trying to nail down the morality of a Jewish or Christian God then we've already taken a lot of material in as an assumption. For one goals have changed if you're an atheist, the after-life has changed (in existence and substance) etc... The idea that God allows people to die when He doesn't have to and is thus evil ignores that. It accepts the idea of the God described in the Bible (take your pick how much of it, depending Jewish or Christian) but then edits out parts about the glory of the world to come or the importance this world serves in preparing us for it or the wisdom of God or just about anything else.
[ETA: proper quote tags]
Hobbes Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:It accepts the idea of the God described in the Bible (take your pick how much of it, depending Jewish or Christian) but then edits out parts about the glory of the world to come...
Not always. There are many sects of Christianity (for example) which are internally inconsistent even when you accept their premises.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
OK, but now you're jumping arguments. The original one was good vs. evil. Internal inconsistencies is entirely different.
Hobbes Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Ah. Well, heck, you can simply assert "'good' is defined as whatever God wants, for any reason" and that particular philosophical debate is over. It's also fundamentally uninteresting and useless, though, to do that, not least because it makes any discussion of whether a possible "glory to come" indeed justifies a potential "eternity of torment" on the other hand; after all, no justification is necessary in that scenario: God just becomes a morally neutral force, a monstrous creature of incomprehensible motive.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Yes, but it's also useless to judge the goodness of a being when you've thrown out the ground rules His very existence brings into play. To indict someone based on a book but ignore the evidence that book gives that exonerates this person is not meaningful. It's true you don't believe the stuff about, say, glorious rewards in Heaven, but you don't believe the stuff about Him commanding His servants to kill anyone either. So if we're going to play the game we have to play by the rules.
Hobbes Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:In what way are you using the word 'true'? Does it mean factually accurate? Effective? Satisfying?
Factually accurate. (Which in turn makes it effective.)
Here's a few varying examples of what I mean: I'm driving and a car cuts me off. My religion suggests things will turn out better if I respond in a kind way, so I don't honk or do anything aggressive to get back at them. After this and similar things happen a number of times, I notice that the suggestion made my religion turned out true - I ended up happier and things worked out better than they would have had I consistently reacted otherwise. It turned out to be factually accurate.
My religion says Jesus existed in ancient Roman times and was put to death. I later learn in history class that such a figure did exist and was put to death. It turned out to be factually accurate.
My religion says I will find more meaning in my life by serving others than serving only myself. I try it, and once again serving others does in fact make my life more meaningful. It turns out to be factually accurate.
And so on. In contrast there's relatively few instances in actual life where religion has led me to believe something that turned out to be false, and I've concluded most of those instances are as a result of me doing one of three things: Accepting Biblical history as being literally true rather than as stories intended to express important concepts. Looking to specific Biblical passages for guidance, rather than looking at the big picture presented by the Bible and Christianity as a whole. Expecting God to perform miracles on command for me.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:To indict someone based on a book but ignore the evidence that book gives that exonerates this person is not meaningful.
This is not what is being done. As I said, many religions are not internally consistent with this definition of "goodness;" many others require that "goodness" be redefined to align with the will of God, which renders questions about the nature of God moot and tiresome.
There are religions which are more internally consistent re: this question, including your own, but they tend to address the issue by limiting the abilities and freedoms of their gods.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
I contest that it is what's being done. Or at least is quite frequently. I have no doubt that there are religions that are internal inconsistent to such a degree that would make it very difficult to argue good and evil when taking their founding assumptions as givens. However I'm always less interested in that question since I normally either have to repudiate another religion or defend something I don't believe in. ::shrug:: I agree the solution in such cases, when arguing from your side (there are sides, right?) is to point to the inconsistencies so as to show that this God can't really be shown to be either Good or Evil. However, in no case do I find it appropriate (in reference to intellectual rigor) to merely discard the rules that religion has and try God in an Atheist world. Of course He loses, even Paul said He would lose!
quote:There are religions which are more internally consistent re: this question, including your own, but they tend to address the issue by limiting the abilities and freedoms of their gods.
I appreciate the compliment (that's what I think that was), but I don't understand why that's an issue here. Or are you saying you agree that within LDS theology, God is Good?
Hobbes Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
An important point I want to make regarding autonomy - we can choose to "give it up" I suppose, but we really don't. We still choose. We are not absolved from responsibility. "Following orders" is not a free pass even if we imagine the orders are from God. If we do something terrible because we think God wants us to, that something is still our crime, our action.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:I appreciate the compliment (that's what I think that was), but I don't understand why that's an issue here. Or are you saying you agree that within LDS theology, God is Good?
My impression is that the Mormon God is morally good but not a "perfect being" in the sense of traditional theism, since he seems to lack omnipotence.
For most Christian sects, there's no reason God couldn't have just created people in Heaven in the first place rather than testing them on Earth first. As I understand it, such a thing would be beyond the power of the Mormon God.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:For most Christian sects, there's no reason God couldn't have just created people in Heaven in the first place rather than testing them on Earth first. As I understand it, such a thing would be beyond the power of the Mormon God.
It's my understanding that in Mormon theology, the souls of people have always existed, and were not created by God at all.
I'd be interested to know if I am correct in that understanding.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
Also, while tempted to reply line by line to your post, Tresopax, I will refrain.
I would point out that by that type of reasoning, I believe you'd find most religions on earth "often correct".
I'd suggest Buddhism.
[ November 12, 2010, 11:22 AM: Message edited by: Xavier ]
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
There is a lot right about Buddhism. A lot of truth to be found in it.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:My impression is that the Mormon God is morally good but not a "perfect being" in the sense of traditional theism, since he seems to lack omnipotence.
I suppose. I guess I'm not familiar with the use of the word 'perfect' in quite that manner but it's not unreasonable. Again I don't see why that's really an issue, but also again I can't tell if this is an argument or just the reason given for allowing the LDS God a pass.
quote:It's my understanding that in Mormon theology, the souls of people have always existed, and were not created by God at all.
I'd be interested to know if I am correct in that understanding.
Close enough I suppose. LDS doctrine teaches that God created each spirit individually and is thus our literal Father. However, it adds that the Spirit is based on 'intelligence', a rather vague term that we know little about except that is has always existed. Thus the substance of what makes us up was not created by God, though our Spirits and bodies (indirectly for the latter) were. There is some confusion about the whole before we were spirits thing particularly since there's just a few snippets of scripture that refer to it. The common belief is that there was a ton of individual intelligences floating around that God converted into spirits. This isn't necessarily untrue, but is not actually supported by scripture the way most people (I've talked to) seem to think it is. There's only one reference to this pre-spirit material and it refers to the whole thing as 'intelligence' singular. The main point of confusion comes from the use of the word 'intelligences' in another, LDS-specific book (Abraham, chapter 3 specifically) but that is clearly being used as a synonym for Spirit there, as the events its referring to took place after all the Spirits were created/born/whatever.
Which is probably more than you wanted to know but... there it is.
Hobbes Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote: Again I don't see why that's really an issue, but also again I can't tell if this is an argument or just the reason given for allowing the LDS God a pass.
More like the latter, although a theologian like Aquinas would have found it bizarre to worship a being who lacked any of the "perfections." But I don't think he justifies that position in a convincing way.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
But yeah, I think the LDS church makes the right move regarding the problem of evil. The only other way I can see to solve it is to be a universalist (that is, hold that everyone who ever lives will eventually end up in heaven) and then tell some convincing story about how the mortal world is needed as an educational experience prior to our ascent to heaven.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:I would point out that by that type of reasoning, I believe you'd find most religions on earth "often correct".
I do find most major religions on earth often correct - and I do consider those religions to also have a degree of expert authority on what is factually true.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
So why do you believe in an afterlife with God in heaven as opposed to, say, reincarnation?
With that question it seems we're probably entering territory we've already covered before. I'm not 100% sure I can predict your answer though, so I'm leaving the question.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
This is familiar territory.... It be sort of like if two teachers taught me two mutually exclusive things - I end up going with the one that seems to me most likely to be true and/or favor the teacher I find most trustworthy. Other religions (such as Buddhism) tend to have some significant tenets I simply haven't found to be true (in the case of Buddhism, a major conclusion entailed by the Four Noble Truths seems factually untrue to me). I'm also simply less familiar with other religions, which also definitely plays some role.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
I don't mean to be rude, but that strikes me as incredibly wishy-washy. I have trouble following your reasoning beyond "ah, it's what I was taught and what I like."
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote: I'm also simply less familiar with other religions, which also definitely plays some role.
Do you think it's rational for familiarity to play a role when settling on a belief?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:I don't mean to be rude, but that strikes me as incredibly wishy-washy. I have trouble following your reasoning beyond "ah, it's what I was taught and what I like."
I'll accept that complaint. I don't like it either, but reality is often wishy-washy. Particularly the parts of reality that religion relates to. It'd be nice if I could have solid black-and-white proof for all the decisions I make and for everything I believe. But in real life half the questions I have to answer are things where countless different people would give me countless different pieces of advice, where I don't have access to the sort of evidence I'd need to see things in black-or-white, where people might judge me poorly regardless of what decision I make, and where the best I can do is make a snap judgement call along whatever lines of reasoning seem right at the time. I think you and everyone else are in a similar situation. And so I think I'd be lying if I said I tried to claim I have some absolute proof or method which makes religious decision-making simple and clear.
quote:Do you think it's rational for familiarity to play a role when settling on a belief?
Yeah. I think its rational to be more trusting of the conclusions of something you understand than something you don't.
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
And I look forward to many more of these discussions.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
.![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
If you are really interested in this, there are a couple of books I could recommend. For some of the "big ticket" issues like slavery and homosexuality, I would suggest reading "The Good Book" by Peter Gomes.