quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Squicky, you said:
quote: I believe that the main reason why many theists seem to think that people without an external moral judge would behave poorly is because these theists lack this internal commitment and haven't developed mature morality.
This judgment requires intimate knowledge of someone's thoughts and character, beyond what I believe human beings are normally capable of.
I've met some of these same sort of people. They say thing like "If I didn't believe in God, what would keep me from just killing the people I don't like or stealing whatever I wanted?"
I don't think it's too far out there to postulate an "immature morality" to that sentiment, though my personal belief is that morality is a more universal aspect of our culture for which we may falsely credit god, personal enlightenment, or some other force.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you are trying to get me to see things differently and/or change my behavior, by all means do so, but please provide some sort of explanation or elaboration.
Without this, it looks to me like all you are interested in is taking shots, which is clearly neither respectful nor productive.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Could you explain?
I think it's rude of you to jump to and publicly state the conclusion about the maturity of others' morality in the way you did.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
I don't think they're capable of making that judgment any more than I believe Squicky is capable of making his.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think it's rude of you to jump to and publicly state the conclusion about the maturity of others' morality in the way you did.
Because...?
Squicky, you stated that you were "not entirely certain what this has to do with civility." What it had to do with civility was that I found the behavior I commented on to be rude.
Now you're asking an entirely different question - why do I think it rude.
It's rude because you're stating negative opinions about others based on your guesses of their motivations and and maturity level. I find that to be rude, just as it would be rude if I were to speculate that you've been posting in such a hostile manner for the last two days because you haven't gotten laid, or got a parking ticket, or had a stomach ache.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Can I ask you to at least attempt to keep a civil tone?
No.
Well, I mean, you're capable of it. I just don't think I'm inclined to comply. Should you make such a request. Which you haven't. Yet.
I've got too much irony in my system right now.
Your attitude-- specifically, that you can make the character judgment that complete strangers are "morally immature" and "lack internal commitment" -- is much more harmful to this community than my foolishness.
In an effort to warn off your destructive attitudes, and to alert this community that you are an individual who cannot be trusted to dialog from an honest, rational, level position, I feel I need to take a strong opposition to your comments.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm going to make an observation here. The line that seems to have started the argument is this:
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: I've made the point before that I believe that the main reason why many theists seem to think that people without an external moral judge would behave poorly is because these theists lack this internal commitment and haven't developed mature morality.
Note the qualifiers here, "many", "these". I'm guessing the reason some are feeling particularly upset is that some ignored these qualifiers and personalized this comment about a group in general to themselves, as if they feel a comment on the group in general is automatically a comment about themselves.
Here is an example
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: I find that to be rude, just as it would be rude if I were to speculate that you've been posting in such a hostile manner for the last two days because you haven't gotten laid, or got a parking ticket, or had a stomach ache.
Note that the comparison is made to Squickly individually when the real parallel would be if Dagonee speculated that many atheists were angry because they collectively got more parking tickets or stomach aches.
I think tempers could be cooled a bit if people kept in mind that a comment about a group in general is not automatically a judgement about all members in that group.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't see why Squicky is getting so beat-up on here. If someone really *would* do horrible things if they lost their belief in God, labeling that an immature morality doesn't strike me as rude. I think the only error is in Squicky taking such claims at face value.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's rude because you're stating negative opinions about others based on your guesses of their motivations and and maturity level. I find that to be rude, just as it would be rude if I were to speculate that you've been posting in such a hostile manner for the last two days because you haven't gotten laid, or got a parking ticket, or had a stomach ache.
Except you would be making negative statements about me, at me, with no sort of support.
I'm making statements about a certain group of people, not party to this discussion, and laying the case why I think so.
The first is a rude, personal attack. You would be being rude to me.
The second is a discussion. Yes, it does attribute some negative characteristics to a group of people. Discussions often do. Who, exactly, was I rude or uncivil to here?
BB attributed negative characteristics to Tom specifically and a group of people and you didn't bat an eye.
If you want to have a discussion about this, you are certainly free to challenge what I said. Scott already has by saying that I have to be a mind reader to be able to make that judgement. I disagreed and, were he looking to discuss the reason for my disagreement, we could talk about why I did.
To me, that's legitimate and it could be productive. What I see people doing, however, is calling names and throwing accusations around to stop or discredit the discussion.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
I don't think that's a rational conclusion based on the responses to Squicky's post.
To be specific-- I noted Squicky's qualifiers. It makes no difference-- I do not believe that he (or anyone) is capable of making the judgments he claims to be able to make.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think tempers could be cooled a bit if people kept in mind that a comment about a group in general is not automatically a judgement about all members in that group.
Your assumption that we do not have that in mind is unwarranted (and, in my case at least, wrong).
I would find your restatement of my hypothetical as a "real parallel" to be equally rude.
quote: If someone really *would* do horrible things if they lost their belief in God, labeling that an immature morality doesn't strike me as rude.
This is a more specific version of Squick's original statement:
quote:I've made the point before that I believe that the main reason why many theists seem to think that people without an external moral judge would behave poorly is because these theists lack this internal commitment and haven't developed mature morality.
Notably missing is any statement that someone would or is claiming that they would do horrible things if they lost their belief in God.
Moreover, Squicky's conclusion patently ignores a host of alternative explanations for that conclusion.
Finally, Squicky has been using the word "maturity" as a club for years here on Hatrack to belittle people. Always in groups, of course, and leaving room to interpret his statements as being about only a subset of people.
It's why I laugh almost every time he calls OSC out for doing the same thing.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Your attitude-- specifically, that you can make the character judgment that complete strangers are "morally immature" and "lack internal commitment" -- is much more harmful to this community than my foolishness.
In an effort to warn off your destructive attitudes, and to alert this community that you are an individual who cannot be trusted to dialog from an honest, rational, level position, I feel I need to take a strong opposition to your comments.
I not entirely sure how my attitude could be considered harmful to the community at all. What harm, exactly, would it be causing?
Also, I have no problem with strong opposition. I never have. I do have a problem with disrespectful namecalling, which is what you are doing. If that is what you equate with strong opposition, I think you may have yoru definitions confused.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I see people doing, however, is calling names and throwing accusations around to stop or discredit the discussion.
Then you're a BLIND mind-reader.
What's occurring is that people are refusing to discuss a topic with you because you claim to have an impossible level of personal knowledge about people who oppose your point of view.
It's not any more valid when you do it than when Mitt Romney does it.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I do not believe that he (or anyone) is capable of making the judgments he claims to be able to make.
Scott, It should be noted that the reason you gave for why no one be capable of making this judgement, that they'd need to be the mindreader, is not what I'm relying my judgement on, as I've already noted.
Unless you, yourself, are claiming to be a mind reader, I don't see how you can reasonably conclude that that is what I'm basing this on.
Or, as I said on the prior page, I don't believe that you are qualified to judgement if I am qualified to make this judgement.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Yeah, you're pissed. We get that. I'm just trying to calm things down here.
All I'm saying is that there seems to be an overreaction and unwarranted anger far beyond what is deserved and giving possible reasons. If you feel like lashing out at the messenger, I can't really help that.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is "not able or not wanting to refrain from behaving badly without an external force preventing them from doing so" really such a terrible indicator of moral immaturity?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Except you would be making negative statements about me, at me, with no sort of support.
I'm making statements about a certain group of people, not party to this discussion, and laying the case why I think so.
Why is "not party to this discussion" relevant to whether you are being rude?
quote:The second is a discussion. Yes, it does attribute some negative characteristics to a group of people. Discussions often do. Who, exactly, was I rude or uncivil to here?
Again, adding a qualifier - that rudeness can only be done to a specific person who happens to post in this thread - that is unwarranted.
quote:BB attributed negative characteristics to Tom specifically and a group of people and you didn't bat an eye.
No, he didn't. He said "You'd be surprised how an immortal apostle would do little for you when a religion's requirements become too difficult to perform or to understand."
You then modified this to "liv[ing] a meaningful, virtuous life" and claimed that BB was saying Tom wouldn't be familiar with the difficulties involved in living such a life.
Your modification is accurate only if fulfilling a religion's requirements is limited to living a meaningful, virtuous life. For most religions, living such a life can be viewed as being a subset of fulfilling their requirements. Alternatively, living a meaningful, virtuous life in the context of a religion can be viewed as having additional requirements not typically associated with a non-religious view of living such a life.
For example, to fulfill the requirements of catholicism typically entails going to weekly mass, receiving the sacraments, praying, fasting, and observing a host of other requirements that are not part of living a meaningful, virtuous life outside the Catholic context.
BB's statement presupposed difficulty in performing or understanding a religion's requirements. It didn't presuppose difficulty in living a meaningful, virtuous life.
quote:To me, that's legitimate and it could be productive. What I see people doing, however, is calling names and throwing accusations around to stop or discredit the discussion.
Which is how I view your string of responses to (and about) BB on this topic.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Have these people ever wistfully recounted the things they would do if not for that pesky God telling them not to? Do they tell you you're so lucky? If so, then I would say you're assessment is correct. If not, I'd say they might have commented without really thinking things through.
P.S. This reminds me of "Reign on me" where they dentist's wife suggests that the dentist envies the drummer's freedom (the drummer is widowered).
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I've made the point before that I believe that the main reason why many theists seem to think that people without an external moral judge would behave poorly is because these theists lack this internal commitment and haven't developed mature morality.
Notably missing is any statement that someone would or is claiming that they would do horrible things if they lost their belief in God.
Ok, they would only do moderately bad things. Or maybe they'd just make bad jokes and drive slow in the carpool lane. I still don't think that labeling people who "think that people without an external moral judge would behave poorly" as morally immature is rude. I happen to disagree with the assessment. But I don't see why it's so obviously and offensively rude.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:For example, to fulfill the requirements of catholicism typically entails going to weekly mass, receiving the sacraments, praying, fasting, and observing a host of other requirements that are not part of living a meaningful, virtuous life outside the Catholic context.
Is that not going to be seen as meaningful and virtuous to a Catholic?
I'm having problems seeing the justification for a religion having requirements that aren't considered by them to be meaningful and virtuous.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Is "not able or not wanting to refrain from behaving badly without an external force preventing them from doing so" really such a terrible indicator of moral immaturity?
It's the assigning of that description that is rude, regardless of whether you assigned it to a group of unnamed people who don't happen to be posting here.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I picked on kat's mind-reading thing specifically to to show my contempt for your position.
I don't think you (or anyone) is capable of evaluating anyone's character to the depth that you're claiming.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:For example, to fulfill the requirements of catholicism typically entails going to weekly mass, receiving the sacraments, praying, fasting, and observing a host of other requirements that are not part of living a meaningful, virtuous life outside the Catholic context.
Is that not going to be seen as meaningful and virtuous to a Catholic?
I'm having problems seeing the justification for a religion having requirements that aren't considered by them to be meaningful and virtuous.
Of course it is going to be meaningful and virtuous to a Catholic. I said as much in my post in the paragraph above.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scott, Not that this is the entirety of my position, but you don't think people can say the people who, by their own admission, are "not able or not wanting to refrain from behaving badly without an external force preventing them from doing so" are morally immature?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:No, they assigned that description to themselves.
No, they haven't, at least not in your original statement. You've interpreted a their statement to mean that.
quote:Ok, they would only do moderately bad things. Or maybe they'd just make bad jokes and drive slow in the carpool lane. I still don't think that labeling people who "think that people without an external moral judge would behave poorly" as morally immature is rude. I happen to disagree with the assessment. But I don't see why it's so obviously and offensively rude.
Fine. Notably missing is any statement that someone would or is claiming that they would do <whatever adjective you want> things if they lost their belief in God.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Eowyn-sama: What if I said that many people only chose to be atheists so that they can feel superior to and more enlightened than the silly Christians.
ETA: that's not actually what I'm saying :-p I don't know enough to make that judgement
I'm only making a generalized statment about "a certain group of people, not party to this discussion", do you find that statement offensive?
Nope, not offensive.
I think it is wrong because it definitely overstates the problem. However, I have no doubt that there are *some* genuine anti-theist atheists that become atheist for that reason, especially if they convert directly from Christianity.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Of course it is going to be meaningful and virtuous to a Catholic. I said as much in my post in the paragraph above.
Then I'm not understanding what your problem is here.
Either there is more to following a religion while a member of that religion than living a virtuous and meaningful life (as seen by that religion) or there isn't.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Fine. Notably missing is any statement that someone would or is claiming that they would do <whatever adjective you want> things if they lost their belief in God.
Isn't that implicit in the statement that "people without an external moral judge would behave badly"?
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd say there is more to following a religion than living a virtuous and meaningful life. (virtuous in this sense meaning abstaining from hurting other people, although the definition you choose for the word really determines your answer)
There's praising your deity of choice, studying the teachings of said religion, and probably most important of all, preparing your soul for the next life.
Posts: 96 | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Of course it is going to be meaningful and virtuous to a Catholic. I said as much in my post in the paragraph above.
Then I'm not understanding what your problem is here.
Either there is more to following a religion while a member of that religion than living a virtuous and meaningful life (as seen by that religion) or there isn't.
Read this again where I present two alternative ways to view the phenomenon:
quote:For most religions, living such a life can be viewed as being a subset of fulfilling their requirements. Alternatively, living a meaningful, virtuous life in the context of a religion can be viewed as having additional requirements not typically associated with a non-religious view of living such a life.
Under one of looking at "living a virtuous and meaningful life" there are religious requirements in addition to living that way. Under ANOTHER way of looking at "living a virtuous and meaningful life" there are not such additional religious requirements.
Regardless of which way one chooses to look at it, there are religious requirements in addition to "living a virtuous and meaningful life" as defined in a non-religious sense.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:No, they haven't, at least not in your original statement. You've interpreted a their statement to mean that.
I'm not entirely sure why what is in my initial statement is the only thing that it important here. I provided that in a subsequent clarification. How do you justify ignoring it?
Also, from my intial statement, they said that all people without an external moral judge would behave very badly. If by interpreting that, you mean that I included them in the set of "all people", I guess that you could say I interpreted that. Are you saying that they can't, by default, be assumed to be in the set of all people?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Regardless of which way one chooses to look at it, there are religious requirements in addition to "living a virtuous and meaningful life" as defined in a non-religious sense.
Yes, but when we are taling about someone who sincerely converted to the religion, we wouldn't be talking about from a non-religious sense, would we?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:There's praising your deity of choice, studying the teachings of said religion, and probably most important of all, preparing your soul for the next life.
Are you saying that this isn't virtuous and meaningful in the eyes of true converts to that religion?
edit: Because my contention is that the extra parts of the religious will come to be seen as virtuous and meaningful to the true convert.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Right, and I'm asking if true converts to a religion would use a definition of meaningful and virtuous that excluded the things that you listed?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Depends on your definition of true convert. I accept and believe most of the Catholic faith, but I don't think abstaining from meat on Fridays during Lent is a particularly virtuous practice.
ETA: I still do try to abstain from meat on Fridays during Lent, out of respect for the traditions and symbolism of the Church, but I don't think of it as being virtuous.
Posts: 96 | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
Here's a more personal and maybe more helpful example: I haven't taken the eucharist in months because I'm running into theological issues with the Church's teachings on that subject. However, I still consider myself to be Catholic, and I hope to eventually be able to figure out the theology and take the eucharist again because it is such a vitally important part of the religion.
So basically, I don't consider this particular sacrament vital to a person's virtue (I've got plenty of non-Catholic friends and I don't think they're lacking virtue because they don't take the sacrament). I think at some point I personally will have to chose one way or the other (I can't indefinietly be Catholic without taking the eucharist) but I don't consider it a requirement for virtue in general.
Posts: 96 | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm trying to decide whether "people would behave badly without belief in an external force" is more or less of a generalization than "people who think that people would behave badly without belief in an external force think that because they lack moral maturity themselves". Or whether either is rude.
It is making my head hurt.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
And again, taking the Eucharist when you are having theological troubles with it is both accepted and even potentially recommended by the Catholic Church.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm trying to decide whether "people would behave badly without belief in an external force" is more or less of a generalization than "people who think that people would behave badly without belief in an external force think that because they lack moral maturity themselves".
Both suppose to know things that the speaker couldn't and makes unwarranted assumptions.
Of course, only the speaker of one continues to insist over and over again that he's right.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the point I was trying to make was that although I consider observing this sacrament vital to my religion, I don't think it is generally a requirement for human virtue.
Posts: 96 | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Do you think that the rules of the Catholic Church on taking the Eucharist are meaningful and virtuous to you?
edit: I'm talking about a person's behavior and perception after they convert.
I started from the position where they are already, without an external force, made a commitment to a virtuous and meaningful life. If they truely convert to a religion, I bel;ieve that they are going to adopt the requirements of that religion as how to live a virtuous and meaningful life for themselves and that their previous experiences are likely going to make it easier for them to live according to this.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
