quote: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?
No one (normally) has the capability to measure someone else's moral maturity or internal commitment to an ideal.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Meaningful, yes. Virtuous, in the sense of 'will I start doing bad things if I don't figure this out', not so much.
ETA: I see what you're getting at, but one of the things taught by Christianity is that even if you want to be a truly good person, you still have to work at it. Simply saying "wow, the existence of God was just proved to me" doesn't make you a perfect Christian (Muslim, Jew, whatever). There's still a lot of work involved, and sometimes people can't follow through with all the requirements.
Posts: 96 | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:No one (normally) has the capability to measure someone else's moral maturity or internal commitment to an ideal.
So that would be a no, you don't think that "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", correct?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:There's still a lot of work involved, and sometimes people can't follow through with all the requirements.
I'm not saying that there isn't work or that people will not, at times, live up to what needs to be done.
I'm saying that the convert will adopt the standards of virtue and meaning of the religion and that the person who has developed an internal commitment to the ideal of a virtuous and meaningful life is likely going to have an easier time in trying to live up to this, in working towards it.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Easier than someone who hasn't converted? Of course! But what BB was saying is that a single miraculous event isn't necessarily enough to carry someone through all the ups and downs and difficulties of a real conversion. (ETA: enough to cause a person to "adopt the standards of virtue and meaning of the religion") Not if the only realization is "oh look, that guy's 2000 years old! There's the proof of God's existence I've been looking for"
I'm not saying that it wouldn't be a nice starting point, though :-p
Posts: 96 | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it might be useful to revist how I got on this track.
BB's statement about how convert Tom would find living according to his religion difficult suggested to me that idea that religious people living a virtuous and meaningful life (by their own definitions of these terms) have it harder than non-religious people. I don't think that this is necessarily an accurate statement and that an argument can be made for the opposite being true, in a general case, anyway.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:But what BB was saying is that a single miraculous event isn't necessarily enough to carry someone through all the ups and downs and difficulties of a real conversion. Not if the only realization is "oh look, that guy's 2000 years old! There's the proof of God's existence I've been looking for"
Looking at it from this perspective (the difficulty involved with the conversion, not with living in the religion), I completely agree. I even said something to that effect, in that I wouldn't consider an immortal person a demonstration of the rightness, of the virtue and meaning, if you will, of the religion that person professes.
I was starting from the standpoint of assuming that Tom's putative conversion was genuine. If we are still talking about the conversion, my comments lose a lot of their relevancy.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:BB's statement about how convert Tom would find living according to his religion difficult suggested to me that idea that religious people living a virtuous and meaningful life (by their own definitions of these terms) have it harder than non-religious people.
Except, you know, BB didn't say this.
Repeating a falsehood over and over and over does not make it true.
I never pegged you for a GW Bush fan. Since you're using some of the same tactics as Bush, though, I'm going to have to reevaluate my stance.
Once again proving that it is utterly futile to make character judgments of the type you seem to think you're capable of.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmmm...interesting. I think that there are different kinds of "harder" - and both may or may not apply to religious people.
There is the kind of religious person who sort of turns over the decision making to another authority. This may be more of less difficult when it comes to following rules, but it may be easier from an intellectual, self-examination, having to really think about things point of view. It may be easier for some people to not have to think about it, but the rules they have to follow are more stringent.
There is the type of person who doesn't recognize any authority and who has to come up with their own moral code. This may require some real intellectual and philosophical "work", but depending on the rules they make for themselves, could be more or less difficult to follow.
People in community also have some support that may not be as readily available to those who are "going it alone". And people who have developed their own moral code may have an easier time following rules that they "wrote" because those rules make sense to them.
And I think that most people are some combination/synthesis/balance of all of those things.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scott, Obviously I don't agree with your assement. I am perfectly willing to discuss our differening impressions in a civil manner. It does not appear to me that you are.
Also, I was hoping to get an answer to this question. Can I expect one?
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:No one (normally) has the capability to measure someone else's moral maturity or internal commitment to an ideal.
So that would be a no, you don't think that "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", correct?
quote:And I think that most people are some combination/synthesis/balance of all of those things.
I very much agree.
One thing that I think is missing from this is outcomes.
You were talking about people going through the process. No, obviously, this process doesn't really end until you die, but people do progress or at least change based on what they are doing.
I'm holding up the real intellectual and philosophical work as a more stable, deep, and ultimately more mature way of pursuing a life of virture and meaning than that of doing what you are told and relying on an external entity.
A person who progresses in that type manner, all other things being equal, is very likely going to be superior in the stablility, depth, and maturity of their morality.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would agree (at least for me). I would add that being religious does not necessarily exempt one from that work. In fact, in my case, religions prompts me to engage more deeply in that work.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
But I don't see morality or other spiritual fruits as the workmanship of human effort. I think the person who believes their morality to be deeply rooted and immovable is often up for a fall.
Though there are a lot of parables involving trees and integrity in Mormon lore. One involves a hidden wedge. Another is the olive grove, and very often in that bigger is not always better.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not at all, but I think it can generally be said that a person who has come to a point where they have a commitment to a virtuous and meaningful life outside of religion has done a fair bit of this work.
I think it can also fairly be said that there are many religious people who do at most minimal amounts of this work, in large part because of the nature and structure of their religious beliefs.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:But I don't see morality or other spiritual fruits as the workmanship of human effort.
Then that presents you with either a negation of free will (i.e. God forces people to behave in a way contrary to their will) or a denial of the reality that non-religious people can have as good or better morality than religious people.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Not at all, but I think it can generally be said that a person who has come to a point where they have a commitment to a virtuous and meaningful life outside of religion has done a fair bit of this work.
I think it can also fairly be said that there are many religious people who do at most minimal amounts of this work, in large part because of the nature and structure of their religious beliefs.
And there are plenty of non-religious people who don't think about their morality at all.
Could you explain a bit more about what you mean by "religious beliefs"? Do you mean more external or internal?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:But I don't see morality or other spiritual fruits as the workmanship of human effort.
Then that presents you with either a negation of free will (i.e. God forces people to behave in a way contrary to their will) or a denial of the reality that non-religious people can have as good or better morality than religious people.
I think what she's saying is that it can't come from only human effort, that God has to be involved in some way. Your second part might be correct, though, it's one of the main reasons that religious people have a problem with non-religious people.
Posts: 96 | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think what she's saying is that it can't come from only human effort, that God has to be involved in some way.
That would still involve God violating my free will.
quote:Your second part might be correct, though, it's one of the main reasons that religious people have a problem with non-religious people.
I'm not sure what the second part of this statement means. What is the reason that religious people have a problem with non-religious that you are talking about?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I am perfectly willing to discuss our differening impressions in a civil manner. It does not appear to me that you are.
The idea that you are capable of understanding people on such a level as you've indicated precludes civil discussion.
It merits only derision.
quote:Also, I was hoping to get an answer to this question. Can I expect one?
I've answered several times now. I'm not a psychic, and never have claimed to be. What more do you want?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think what she's saying is that it can't come from only human effort, that God has to be involved in some way.
That would still involve God violating my free will.
God can't violate your free will if you go along willingly. That's one of the main tennets of Christianity--we have the free will to fight God or obey him. And since he's got our best interests in mind, it's a good idea to obey him.
quote:I'm not sure what the second part of this statement means. What is the reason that religious people have a problem with non-religious that you are talking about?
Sorry, that wasn't very clear--what I meant is that your second possibility, a "denial of the reality that non-religious people can have as good or better morality than religious people" is indeed what the theory is saying. That without a close connection to God, true morality (or true 'goodness') is not possible.
Posts: 96 | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:The idea that you are capable of understanding people on such a level as you've indicated precludes civil discussion.
as I've said, the question isn't even a matter of understanding people. It's basically one of definition. The people have already said that they are "not able or not wanting to refrain from behaving badly without an external force preventing them from doing so". The determination is whether that is an indicator of moral immaturity, or conversely, if the ability and desire to refrain from behaving badly without an external force preventing you from doing so can rightly be termed moral maturity.
You aren't disagreeing with my ability to assess people, as much as you are trying to make it about that. They've already made the assessment. You seem to be disagreeing with the definition.
If you feel that that is not an accurate definition, I would ask how you would define moral maturity, especially in relation to behavior absent an external constraining entity?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:God can't violate your free will if you go along willingly.
Right, and I explicitly reject the Christian God. I don't know if He exists or not, but I think that, as he is generally described, he is an evil entity. I don't think that he has my best interests in mind. I reject any influence that he holds over my behavior.
If I need this influence to be good, either I am not a good person or he is violating my free will.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:And since he's got our best interests in mind, it's a good idea to obey him.
I don't mean to be rude, certainly we've had far too much of that but...are we reading the same bible?
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
To cut through most of the last two pages of what appears to me to be oddly confrontational crap:
I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that those people who believe that personal religion is necessary in order to behave morally believe that they would behave immorally without religion. As the other possible conclusion -- that they think they'd behave morally without religion, but that other people would not -- is fairly egotistical, it seems to me that taking them at their word is the least objectionable approach.
Nor do I think that it's particularly rude to observe that this is, almost definitionally, immature ethics.
In other words, I really don't understand what's rude about saying that people who assert that all morality is dependent upon religion are morally immature. It's not particularly presumptuous to form an opinion of people based upon what they have told you about themselves -- and someone who tells you that people wouldn't be moral unless they had God are telling you that he wouldn't be moral unless he had a God.
Honestly, Scott, I don't see why you're so offended by what Squicky's saying here. He's not saying he's a mind-reader. He's saying that, by their own admission, people who believe they need God to be moral are less ethically mature than people who don't.
---------
quote:Except, you know, BB didn't say this.
I'm pretty sure that BB did say this. But it's not abnormal, and I'm not insulted by it. I'm actually aware that it's practically Mormon doctrine that God doesn't prove His existence to avoid forcing people to live up to His impossibly high standards. I think that belief is pretty silly, myself, but I understand why someone might hold it; it's not offensive.
I'm torked when you do it, too. I just like you more than I like Squicky.
EDIT: ...so I don't gripe nearly as much when you flounce your arrogance around.
In reality, they amount to the same thing-- someone deciding, without fact, without anything but an oppositional view (and thus, prejudiced view) of someone else's opinion, that a person 'lacks commitment' or is 'morally immature.'
(Notice, please, that there are TWO terms I find offensive-- I don't know why everyone is focusing on just one)
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
We cannot choose whether to be influenced, whether by God or by the people around us or in some belief systems, by the devil. But we can choose which influence to follow. At least, that's the theory I'm operating on when I say these things.
I suppose on can try to influence oneself, but there will be a parallax effect in dealing with any new or unanticipated situation.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Or the God you reject has very little to do with the real God. Maybe the real God is acting with your free will (your free will to become the person you want to be) in little ways that make you better and you just don't notice. Posts: 96 | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Eowyn-sama: Or the God you reject has very little to do with the real God. Maybe the real God is acting with your free will (your free will to become the person you want to be) in little ways that make you better and you just don't notice.
If that is true, then the real god is not to be found in the bible.
(Edit: I'm not answering for Squick...I just happen to agree with his earlier comment.)
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Or the God you reject has very little to do with the real God. Maybe the real God is acting with your free will (your free will to become the person you want to be) in little ways that make you better and you just don't notice.
That's basically impossible. One of the major aspects of the God I would reject is one that would manipulate me in that way, who would interfere with my basic nature against my consent.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:He's saying that, by their own admission, people who believe they need God to be moral are less ethically mature than people who don't.
A person who needs to fear God to be moral is different from a person who is moral out of the love of God. One is his prisoner, the other is his child.
And it is a tenet of Mormonism that we become as little children. I suppose, in that sense, that I for one am not offended to be considered immature.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:In reality, they amount to the same thing-- someone deciding, without fact, without anything but an oppositional view (and thus, prejudiced view) of someone else's opinion, that a person 'lacks commitment' or is 'morally immature.'
I'm not sure what an "oppositional view" has to do with anything. If someone says "I would not be a moral person if God didn't exist," they are saying that they are morally immature. As far as I can tell, the problem seems to be that you don't actually have a definition for moral maturity.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem is precisely as I've stated, Tom. Despite the fact that my morals and say, the morals of a cannibalistic, polygamous tribesman in New Guinea are very different, I'd never disparage his 'moral maturity.'
I don't know it; I can't know it. I disagree with his practices, but far be it from me to judge him on so deeply personal a matter.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Eowyn, I just wanted to say that I appreciate your contributions and the way that you are handling yourself. On a somewhat selfish note, it's nice to be able to have a respectful conversation on topics like this where there is great disagreement. Thanks so much.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Despite the fact that my morals and say, the morals of a cannibalistic, polygamous tribesman in New Guinea are very different, I'd never disparage his 'moral maturity.'
That has little relevancy to what we are discussing. It's not morals themselves we are discussing, but rather how they are held.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Or the God you reject has very little to do with the real God. Maybe the real God is acting with your free will (your free will to become the person you want to be) in little ways that make you better and you just don't notice.
That's basically impossible. One of the major aspects of the God I would reject is one that would manipulate me in that way, who would interfere with my basic nature against my consent.
I don't think Eowyn means that he's being manipulative. He's taking the decisions you make and making good with them. If God isn't like that, passive and refusing to do anything with the world, we might as well be all atheists, or at least agnostics, because God wouldn't help us at all.
If what Eowyn says is true, which I find likely, God is not manipulating you. He's acting in your best interests and allowing you still to make your choices and not interfere with your nature.
Posts: 1029 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
If someone says "I am two and a half feet tall," it is not inaccurate to say they are short -- and, moreover, to observe that they are confessing to being short (although not to thinking themselves short). Calling them "short" might be rude, depending on the situation, but it's not presumptuous.
By a reasonable definition of "short," a grown adult under three feet tall is short. By a reasonable definition of "mature," someone who requires a belief in God to behave morally is immature.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
C3PO, I'm not sure what that means. It sounds like Eowyn was suggesting that God was altering my nature or decision making process despite my explict wish that he would not do so. How is that not manipulating me?
That is, without God's actions or whatever, I would behave differently. Thus, God's actions have to be changing something, which is the thing that I will that he not do.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
A child that cannot walk without his parents holding him up is an immature at walking. A person who cannot be a morally good person without his God keeping him in line is a morally immature.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scott, as I recall, you have assigned moral irresponsibly pretty broadly yourself on occasion. Why is moral immaturity so much worse?
I think there is a level of maturity in being moral without "someone" making you be moral. Doing my housework (for example) because I want my house to be clean is more mature than cleaning because someone is standing over me making me clean. (I am a very immature housecleaner.)
Eowyn-sana, I don't think that God would be quite so sneaky. I also think that the line (if there is one) between God and oneself is pretty darn fuzzy. What is "us" and what is God is not really two entirely different things. God, I believe, is not "an external force".
I do agree that goodness is impossible without God. Of course, for me, that is pretty much saying that goodness is impossible without goodness, so I may not be much help.
I think that goodness is possible without the "external force sky god" that we sometimes imagine is God.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the whole conversation is a bit nonsense because I seriously doubt that religion does hold people back from acting immorally if they actually wanted to.
I have complete faith in the human ability to lie to themselves and justify their own behavior, no matter how dreadful and no matter the moral code they say they follow.
I also suspect that people are drawn to religions and moral laws, especially those with strict codes of behavior, not because they wish to act immorally and need to be stopped but precisely because they wish to act morally.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Javert: That has to be it, as I'm not trying to interpret it. Just reading what it says.
Reading without interpretation is not possible. Various groups have claimed to do so (with regard to the Bible) for centuries, but their "uninterpreted" reading is just another interpretation. Until someone finds a way to communicate concepts mind to mind without the interference of language, communication will always involve interpretation.
Witness the different interpretations of various posts on this thread, for example.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think the whole conversation is a bit nonsense because I seriously doubt that religion does hold people back from acting immorally if they actually wanted to.
I'm not quite ready to throw out the idea that fear of punishment and hope of reward has an effect on human behavior.
---
quote:I also suspect that people are drawn to religions and moral laws, especially those with strict codes of behavior, not because they wish to act immorally and need to be stopped but precisely because they wish to act morally.
It is important to realize that people are not one-dimensional. Motivations are complex things, with many, often competing elements. I don't think that it is anywhere near as simple as you are making out.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: By a reasonable definition of "mature," someone who requires a belief in God to behave morally is immature.
That is based on assumptions about the relationship between God and morality that are not shared by everyone in this conversation.
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: MPH - the relation is definitional.
A child that cannot walk without his parents holding him up is an immature at walking. A person who cannot be a morally good person without his God... is a morally immature.
No, I don't think that morality works like that.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't actually mean that God was directly playing around with your head. I meant that certain situations, certain sights, may be designed to show you something that you wouldn't have thought of otherwise, and this might influence your decisions down the road. (This can still be called manipulation, but since you're free to draw your own conclusions, it's hopefully not as objectionable)
C3PO rasies another valid point. God may be subtly influencing the effects of your actions, making your good actions better and dampening the effects of your bad decisions.
I don't actually pretend to understand how this would work, but I do believe that any good action is a step towards God and any bad action is a step away from Him, whether you realize it or not.
Then again, it is possible that if you tell God to butt out of your life, He will.
This has been a great discussion, thanks ^_^ Unfortunately, I haven't gotten nearly enough work done today, so I'm gonna have to say bye for tonight.
Posts: 96 | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: I think the whole conversation is a bit nonsense because I seriously doubt that religion does hold people back from acting immorally if they actually wanted to.
I have complete faith in the human ability to lie to themselves and justify their own behavior, no matter how dreadful and no matter the moral code they say they follow.
I also suspect that people are drawn to religions and moral laws, especially those with strict codes of behavior, not because they wish to act immorally and need to be stopped but precisely because they wish to act morally.
I don't disagree, JH. However, at least in academic-type philosophy & theology, there are an awful lot of arguments floating around that without a God there is either no such thing as morality, or there is no reason to be moral. I disagree with both stances, and I think others on this thread do too.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
