you seem to be consistently using "religion" as a synonym for catholicism. if you truly want to introduce your oldest step-daughter to "religion", you should also introduce her to other faiths like hinduism, buddhism, islam, daoism, etc.
the idea of religion somehow providing a higher moral system is faulty IMO. moral values are extremely subjective, and different religions, societies have different perspectives on them. The same action that is holy in one is blasphemous in another, so one inherently identifies their own system as "higher".
I'd recommend reading Peter Berger's "Sacred Canopy"... it's one of the canonical texts of religious studies, and explores the human need for God and religion.
BTW
technically, "atheist" does not mean "one who has no religion", it means "one who believes in no God". this difference is significant: I identify myself as an "atheistic non-dualist Hindu" which means that I am religious in the non-dualist Hindu way and I do not believe in a God-being; my wife does not believe in religion. we're both atheistic, but from a religiosity perspective, two completely different animals.
Posts: 142 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think it is necessary to conduct a world religions class before you can talk about your faith. Asking stihl is like asking him to teach that what he believes is just one of several possible options. You may think that it is, but if he doesn't feel that way, then it wouldn't be right to teach it.
It also makes me nervous to have an adherent of one religion expound on another. I've talked to too many people who learned all about the Mormons at their church and refuse to believe that what they were taught wasn't true, despite what the Mormon church itself said to the contrary.
quote:moral values are extremely subjective
This itself is a belief. Stihl is under no obligation to teach something he doesn't believe.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Most religions have higher moral standards and values than the rest of society, and most Christians believe the sin and repentance thing.
Do you have evidence for this claim? My reading suggests that the behavior of many religious in many aspects is worse than that of the rest of society.
---
Also, I think you may have missed my point. I'm not saying that your religion is objectively a negative thing. I'm saying that, for me, it wuold be a negative thing. It is possible to understand your faith without liking it or wanting it for oneself.
As for the judgmental thing, as I said, that's just how you are coming off to me. Your response actually strengthened that impression.
But, as I said, this may be just the way you are coming off to me. However, again, if you are coming off this way to me, it is possible that you are coming off this way to the people you're talking about.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Even if true, that doesn't contradict in the slightest what he said.
A church is not a museum of perfect people but a hospital for those who are not. It is like pointing at the cancer ward and saying that's proof that modern medicine causes people to die of cancer.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure if I'm reading you correctly. Are you suggesting that religious people start off as worse (i.e. have cancer) than the rest of society?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
I don't think that religious people are necessarily any more moral than others. Judge your wife's morals by what she does, not by what she believes. Better still, don't judge her at all. Respect her choices. Reassure her and your step daughter that your faith doesn"t change how you feel about them. It sound like your step daughter especially needs reassurance.
Faith is a very personal thing - as you discovered in your encounters with people who thought you needed to be "saved". That is just as repellant coming from a Catholic point of view.
I am glad that you are finding your way. Remember that you found it because you were looking - people trying to encourage you toward a certain path would only have had the opposite effect. Catholicism is not right for everybody.
Mostly, trust the Holy Spirit to work for the best in your family, just as it has for you. You are not "in charge". Leave it to God.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Are you suggesting that religious people start off as worse (i.e. have cancer) than the rest of society?
No.
quote:A church is not a museum of perfect people but a hospital for those who are not. It is like pointing at the cancer ward and saying that's proof that modern medicine causes people to die of cancer.
posted
Errr...but in that metaphor, the people being compared to (the rest of society in the original formulation) don't have cancer. I'm not sure how what you are saying makes sense if we're not saying that the religious people cancer (or are morally worse) so it is not fair to compare them to people who don't have cancer (the non-religious people who behave better than the religious ones). Could you explain?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Am I alone in my confusion as to the point/validity of the metaphor here?
edit: As I see it, it is pretty clear.
The one group (religous people/cancer patients) start out with some deficiency that they need to be treated for (by joining a religion/going to the hospital). Other people don't have this deficiency and so aren't religious or aren't in the hospital. So, when I compared the moral behavior of religious to non-religious people, it was like comparing the health of people in a cancer ward in a hospital to that of healthy people and saying that hospitals make you sick.
If this isn't other people's impression, could someone point out where my interpretation is flawed?
posted
No. She lost me, too. I can't imagine that she's saying that the people in church are more likely to need to be cured of their social problems than the rest of the population.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: If it's a personal thing, and you realize that your choice may not fit them, why not just accept that they have their own beliefs, which are different than yours, and leave it at that?
You keep mentioning that you feel like you failed in your job to educate them about religion. It sounds to me that you don't mind that they're not Catholic, you just feel guilty for not fulfilling your duty to "show them the way."
This bothers me, because I never wrote "show them the way". You keep interjecting your own biases into what I wrote. What I wrote was I feel somewhat responsible because I never taught either of my stepdaughters about christianity at all. Not that I feel that it's my "duty to show them the way." That presupposes I believe that christianity has to be what they believe. I don't think it's my job to make sure they believe in Christianity, just that they know about it and understand a positive viewpoint. After that it's up to them.
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: Is it really about their faith, or is about your feeling that you need to do more? What I'm getting at, I suppose, is that if, when you get right down to it, it's not so much about their beliefs anyway -since you admit that it's cool if they never convert- maybe you just have a feeling that you should connect with them better. If that's the case, you might be able to better connect with them in a non-religious way.
Heck, maybe instead of you telling them about your faith, you should offer to really learn about what they believe.
I'm going totry to be nice about this, because I've explained this twice. My stepdaughter doesn't believe anything. She's made that clear. As I said, all she's shown me is a negative antichristian attitude that's based in anger and rebelliousness since she knows nothing about the religion and admits as much. And frankly she's not interested in doing anything but bashing christianity, which she knows nothing about, which is an argument I don't need to be in. My wife has a cursory knowledge of Christianity, doesn't know what she believes because she hasn't ever explored it. She does know that she wasn't interested in her sister's religion and so far she feels more comfortable going to church with me than she did with other churches in the past.
It's not a matter of my wife having different beliefs from me. That would be fine. She really has no specific beliefs or preferences. She has voluntarily come to church with me to explore her faith. As I've written, I never asked her to do anything, she came along on her own.
My stepdaughter has no religious beliefs other than being anti christian and angry that we're going to church. Would I like her to at least understand christianity and what I believe? Yes. Do I regret that I never made an effort to explain christianity to her? Yes. It is sad to me that she has such a negative anti christian opinion that she's formed without knowledge of the religion. That is my regret and I consider it to be my failure, not hers. I don't need her to believe the same as me, I am not pushing anything on her, I never set out to convert or instruct or make her believe anything. I was doing my own thing, she interjected herself into the situation.
I've written this, I'm not sure what part you missed the first couple of times.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: What's the distinction?
To convert to my religion would involve more than just having more of a better relationship with and/or understanding of God. I recognize catholicism isn't for everyone, and that not everyone is going to believe the same way.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:They could certainly be moral and avoid doing certain things because they are in conflict with their morals, but they aren't going to have that religious connotation to them.
So...? Do you find your wife's morals to be lacking?
First, that's not what I was saying. Second, I wasn't implying that a moral non-religious person was lacking in morality, just that it would be different from a moral religious person. And finally, lacking sometimes yes. More often, just different from mine.
Posts: 1042 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:My reading suggests that the behavior of many religious in many aspects is worse than that of the rest of society.
quote:Even if true, that doesn't contradict in the slightest what he said.
A church is not a museum of perfect people but a hospital for those who are not. It is like pointing at the cancer ward and saying that's proof that modern medicine causes people to die of cancer.
The point was that even if true, the behavior of religious people does not translate directly into the worth of the religion. The analogy was to demonstrate that.
I am not responsible for any other readings into what I said, and I will not defend misinterpretations.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I wasn't implying that a moral non-religious person was lacking in morality, just that it would be different from a moral religious person. And finally, lacking sometimes yes. More often, just different from mine.
I think this is the core of the issue. When you run into situations where your daughter or your wife disagree with you on a point of ethics, talk to them about it. Ethical discussions are more productive than religious discussions, anyway.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, people are free to read things into it, and of course people will. However, I won't defend what they get wrong.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I can't imagine that she's saying that the people in church are more likely to need to be cured of their social problems than the rest of the population.
I think she is saying that if you need to be cured of sins, a church is the place to go to get cured. Thus it would make sense if the people who most need to be cured are often drawn to churches.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's very close, but still extending a little farther than I meant, Tres.
A church is not filled with people who are living their religion perfectly. So, failings in the people do not translate into failings of the religion.
People are of course welcome to criticize the teachings of the religion, but pointing to the behavior of those who attend, especially when they are NOT living up to the teachings of the religion, is not a good way to go about it.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do feel that there comes a point when that excuse for the failings of the religious is used up. To extend your metaphor, atheistic ethics is likewise a hospital filled with cancerous people; if it has a better survival rate, then it is objectively better, and the religion fails.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Most religions have higher moral standards and values than the rest of society, and most Christians believe the sin and repentance thing.
This is revealing. I agree that most members of most religions believe they are following a "higher moral standard", but how many of those would recognize any of the others as having an equally high moral standard. The point is, for every single religion, the vast, VAST, majority of "the rest of society" is made up of the religious, just that they are the religious of other religions. Therefore, the phrase "Most religions have higher moral standards and values than the rest of society" seems to be to be a paradox. It's demonstrably impossible. The sad thing is that where so many of the religious seem to agree is that whatever their code, it's at least higher than those compass-less atheists.
I understand your point, but I disagree. It can be shown in our society that actions such as premarital sex, abortion, extramarital affairs, violence, sexual promiscuity, doing drugs, abortion, etc etc all have become less taboo and more acceptable as a part of society. Yet most religions have values that are contrary to this. And many religious people will take stances against this. Yet these things that are contrary to religious beliefs become more prevalent. Which means either people aren't following their religion's values, people aren't as religious as they claim, or that people just flat out aren't religious. Therefore, I believe your claim that the vast majority of society is made up of the religious is incorrect. The disparity in values between society at large and the values of most religions shows this. If your statement were true, I think that there wouldn't be quite the disparity.
I guess my point is, and maybe even my opinion is, that I grew up in a very catholic, religious household and much of my morals and values are based on what I was taught and learned growing up in that environment. It's obvious to me that these are different values than the rest of society, and I think that anyone who grew up in a more religious household is going to have different values and morals than a non religious house. Because mainly, there is another modality at use in forming those values and morals. That being consideration for straying from the teachings of their religion and God. That being said, I don't think that someone who was/is nonreligious has lesser morals, or that they are lacking, or can't be a great, model, moral, high citizen of society. Just different. That doesn't make them lesser than me necessarily. But there are things I wouldn't do or have never done or wouldn't consider because they contrast with my religious beliefs and values. Whereas I do know, have known people who had no problem doing those things because of their lack of religiousness. I also know people (no one in particular) that have a different, more carefree attitude about things that I don't have because of religious considerations. And to be honest, I don't understand those attitudes sometimes. That doesn't make them wrong, I'm not judging, it's just different.
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: ... it's entirely possible her reaction is due to what she fears about religion as a new force in the lives of those close to her. I have no way of knowing what her experiences thus far have been, but I do know that if Chris (my partner) suddenly "found religion" or started going to church, I'd probably make it known that I prefer the status quo, (depending on what religion, etc), though hopefully I could do so without any histrionics or rudeness. Depending on how religious he became, and what religion, and how it changed him and demanded his time, it could very possibly spell the end of our relationship.
I do think this is the case, that's she's afraid that we're going to turn into Christian nazis and maybe not approve or agree or even love her anymore because of that. I can understand that, I've had those experiences. But I am determined to not turn my exploration of my religion and faith into an open season on converting, judging, disapproving, hurting those I love and respect. And I'd tell her that if she would give me 2 seconds to try to share, but that hasn't happened, which is what saddens me. Like I said, this whole thing started out as a very personal thing that I never intended to spread to others or have effect others. But to be clear, because she has interjected herself into the situation and is so opposed to it doesn't mean I'm going to stop anything or change my mind. I'm more than happy to explain myself and/or reassure her if necessary, but this isn't something that I can be persuaded, cajolled, or forced to stop because of her misconceptions. I certainly have a right to enlighten myself and pursue a better relationship with God and my religion. I would certainly never act the same way if she chose to do the same with another religion or belief system or whatever.
Posts: 1042 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pix, I don't think that we necessarily have more guilt. I do think that we have "mechanisms" for dealing with guilt which may be why it seems that we put an emphasis on it.
edit to add:
stihl, in my experience, people who consider themselves religious (in general) are just about as sinful as people who don't.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: No. She lost me, too. I can't imagine that she's saying that the people in church are more likely to need to be cured of their social problems than the rest of the population.
No, what she's saying is just because you believe in God or are religious doesn't mean you are perfect, or perfect examples of a religion's beliefs. Some people think that just because you are religious you are perfect and are trying to make everyone else perfect. That's not true, at least for my religion. The reason for being religious or faithful is because you're not perfect, you are a sinner, and to get closer to God and his perfection you need a religion. For catholics, we don't consider ourselves to be perfect or perfectly moral or better than anyone. We participate in our faith to become better, to work at being closer to God, to become more perfect according to his vision. Because we're not, we're sinful people, and getting closer to God means getting further away from being sinful. The catholic faith is designed to help you do that. And that's what so many people don't understand when they consider the sacraments, the rituals, the rights, the beliefs. They see the surface of what we do, not the meaning or goals.
Anywho, for many religious people, and many nonreligious people view religion from the outside, being religious means being perfect. That's not true. If you were perfect, you wouldn't need to be in church. If you were perfectly healthy and didn't have cancer, you wouldn't be in a cancer ward. She's not saying the rest of society has cancer, but (if you're a christian) we are all sinners.
Posts: 1042 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
you seem to be consistently using "religion" as a synonym for catholicism. if you truly want to introduce your oldest step-daughter to "religion", you should also introduce her to other faiths like hinduism, buddhism, islam, daoism, etc.
But I haven't said I feel responsible for not introducing my stepdaughter to religion, I said I feel responsible for not introducing her to Christianity. Frankly, it's not my job to teach comparative religion, nor would I want to.
quote:Originally posted by Abhi: the idea of religion somehow providing a higher moral system is faulty IMO. moral values are extremely subjective, and different religions, societies have different perspectives on them. The same action that is holy in one is blasphemous in another, so one inherently identifies their own system as "higher".
I disagree. Rarely is there a societal norm for morality that is higher than a religion, unless we're talking about a satanic or 'negative' religion. It's usually the other way around. And I'm not discussing other societies and their religions. I'm talking about my society vs my religion.
quote:Originally posted by Abhi: BTW
technically, "atheist" does not mean "one who has no religion", it means "one who believes in no God". this difference is significant: I identify myself as an "atheistic non-dualist Hindu" which means that I am religious in the non-dualist Hindu way and I do not believe in a God-being; my wife does not believe in religion. we're both atheistic, but from a religiosity perspective, two completely different animals.
I didn't say it did. I commented on someone who doesn't believe in anything being different in someone who does believe in something. And that not believing isn't the same thing as believing. The absence of faith isn't in itself a faith. And I never mentioned aethism.
Posts: 1042 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:No, what she's saying is just because you believe in God or are religious doesn't mean you are perfect, or perfect examples of a religion's beliefs.
No one was talking about perfection. We were talking about relative to "the rest of society". More specifically, I said that in many ways, religious people behave worse than the rest of society (edit: on average).
I don't understand how that would introduce issues of perfection.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I think this is the core of the issue. When you run into situations where your daughter or your wife disagree with you on a point of ethics, talk to them about it. Ethical discussions are more productive than religious discussions, anyway.
I would never start an ethical or moral discussion based on "God says" or "my religions says". I would explain what my moral opinion or belief was, and if pertinent relate it to why I believe that, if necessary because of my faith.
Posts: 1042 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I disagree. Rarely is there a societal norm for morality that is higher than a religion, unless we're talking about a satanic or 'negative' religion. It's usually the other way around.
Perhaps you would care to provide an example of one way in which your religion has a higher standard than the rest of society.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:No, what she's saying is just because you believe in God or are religious doesn't mean you are perfect, or perfect examples of a religion's beliefs.
No one was talking about perfection. We were talking about relative to "the rest of society". More specifically, I said that in many ways, religious people behave worse than the rest of society.
I don't understand how that would introduce issues of perfection.
Sometimes religious people do behave worse than the rest of society. That shouldn't reflect poorly on religion or God. Because religious people aren't perfect, or better because they are religious. Although you seem to be trying to put them there.
Posts: 1042 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by stihl1: My stepdaughter has no religious beliefs other than being anti christian and angry that we're going to church. Would I like her to at least understand christianity and what I believe? Yes. Do I regret that I never made an effort to explain christianity to her? Yes. It is sad to me that she has such a negative anti christian opinion that she's formed without knowledge of the religion.
If I'm recalling correctly, you said your stepdaughter was an adult, living on her own, correct? Isn't it entirely possible that she's formed that opinion through her own experiences? Just because you haven't provided knowledge of the religion doesn't mean she hasn't gained that knowledge from other sources. It's quite possible to grow up with a negative view of religion, if your primary interaction with proponents of that religion are people telling you how bad you are and how you're going to hell. (I'm speaking from experience, here; I grew up in the Bible Belt and was routinely told at school by peers that I was going to hell.)
In my opinion, your best bet is to continue doing your own thing (as you said), and provide a counter-example to her own negative experiences. Others have suggested this upthread, and I think they are wise.
Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I disagree. Rarely is there a societal norm for morality that is higher than a religion, unless we're talking about a satanic or 'negative' religion. It's usually the other way around.
Perhaps you would care to provide an example of one way in which your religion has a higher standard than the rest of society.
My religion doesn't believe in abortion, it is murder. In the US abortion is legal, and remains legal because the rest of society keeps it that way. And many people don't consider it to be murder. I wouldn't consider having an abortion ever. For many people in society, it's not a problem. The standard I set and that my religion teaches is higher than society. That standard is lower than that of my religion, imo.
And I'm sure you'll disagree. You're free to disagree. That doesn't make you right, or me wrong. But it does prove my point.
Posts: 1042 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
See, that's where I disagree. When people belonging to any organization consistently behave worse than a well-structured control that suggests to me that either 1) those people started out worse or 2) some aspect of that organization makes them worse - or some combination of the two.
When you are toutng your religion as the moral standard people should shoot for, I think it is extremely relevant to consider the behavior of people inside that religion and see if it matches your recommendations. If religion is the superior standard, but religious people are behaving worse than people outside that religion, then that religion very likely has some serious problems with how it is imparting that standard. Thus, while the standard may be superior, the religion, as an organization seems not to be.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Don't have time to read the whole thread, but why not try a faith that isn't quite so full of guilt as Catholicism?
It seems like your wife and stepchildren don't feel guilty and don't want to feel guilty. Why not use the carrot instead of the stick?
There are lots of kinds of christianity. Maybe you should meet them half way?
Because I'm not asking them to meet me anywhere. My beliefs as a catholic are very important to me, but I don't need them to, and I'm not requiring them to, I'm not even asking them to, believe the same way as me. As I said, if my wife decided she wasn't into catholicism that's fine, I don't expect her to convert, never asked her to convert or even come to church with me. As far as the stepkid goes, she isn't even willing to communicate with me, let alone have the opinion that catholicism is 'full of guilt'.
Posts: 1042 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:My religion doesn't believe in abortion, it is murder. In the US abortion is legal, and remains legal because the rest of society keeps it that way. And many people don't consider it to be murder. I wouldn't consider having an abortion ever. For many people in society, it's not a problem. The standard I set and that my religion teaches is higher than society. That standard is lower than that of my religion, imo.
And I'm sure you'll disagree. You're free to disagree. That doesn't make you right, or me wrong. But it does prove my point.
I think that mint chocolate chip is the best ice cream. Other people disagree. Thus I have proven that I have better taste than other people.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:And I'm sure you'll disagree. You're free to disagree. That doesn't make you right, or me wrong. But it does prove my point.
No it doesn't. It proves that your religion has a higher standard of morality by the standard of morality espoused by your religion. See the circularity? I could just as well claim that catholics are immoral because the Pope forbids contraceptives; in fact, I do claim that. Since the only way to settle such an issue is with machine guns, how about coming up with an example where the morality is agreed on?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: See, that's where I disagree. When people belonging to any organization consistently behave worse than a well-structured control that suggests to me that either 1) those people started out worse or 2) some aspect of that organization makes them worse - or some combination of the two.
For me to agree with this, I would have to agree that people belonging to religions consistently behave poorly. While I do agree there are a lot of hypocrits and people who cover themselves with the blanket of religion while not truly behaving according to that religion, there is a lot of good done in this world by religious people and a lot of positive things that come out of religion. And I see plenty of rotten people who know nothing about God. Does that mean all God-less people are rotten?
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: When you are toutng your religion as the moral standard people should shoot for, I think it is extremely relevant to consider the behavior of people inside that religion and see if it matches your recommendations. If religion is the superior standard, but religious people are behaving worse than people outside that religion, then that religion very likely has some serious problems with how it is imparting that standard. Thus, while the standard may be superior, the religion, as an organization seems not to be.
I never said my religion is the moral standard people should shoot for. I never said religious moral people were better. I said religions tend to have higher standards than the rest of society. No one follows all of the standards of morality, whether it be religion or society. Because we are human. But I stand by the fact that religions often set a higher standard for their members to reach than the rest of society. A religion sets the bar, based on what God says. No one is going to reach that standard, ever. Because we aren't perfect. That doesn't mean that standard, or that organization isn't valid.
Posts: 1042 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
If people outside your religion are coming closer to the standard set by your religion than those inside it, then plainly something is wrong with the religion, even if we should agree on the standard.
I accept your point that it has yet to be shown in this thread that atheists are in fact more moral than theists; I don't have time to chase down those statistics again, but perhaps someone else could do it.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:A religion sets the bar, based on what God says. No one is going to reach that standard, ever. Because we aren't perfect.
Have you considered that this attitude may actually prevent some people from achieving their moral potential, rather than aspiring to it?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: [QUOTE]I think that mint chocolate chip is the best ice cream. Other people disagree. Thus I have proven that I have better taste than other people.
I never said I have "better" morals than other people. I never said my religion has "better" morals than society. I said the standard is higher. That is not a judgement statement.
If one school sets the standards for admission as having a gpa of 4.0, and another sets theirs at 3.0, the first school has higher standards. Doesn't mean they are better. Someone might consider that having a 3.0 and being involved in other activities and/or interestes are more important than being a straight A student, and want to go to that school. Others might think that going to a school that requires straight A's is better. That doesn't affect the fact that the standards to get into the 4.0 school aren't higher.
You can chose to disagree as to whether or not the morals of my church are better. But the fact is, if I chose to live by the standards of society, it's not good enough for my church community. Because the church community has higher standards.
Posts: 1042 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Does that mean all God-less people are rotten?
No. But it does suggest the possibility. We can test that possibility using scientific investigation. Then we can talk about the results of that investigation and use it to assess group members' performance on various measures. Which is what I've done here.
Religious people consistently demonstrate certain types of poor behavior at a higher rate than non-religious people.
---
quote:But I stand by the fact that religions often set a higher standard for their members to reach than the rest of society.
They often set a lower standard of behavior as well. Depends on what you are using as your measure.
And, regardless of the value of the measure, the actual performance is, in many cases worse, which does call into question the validity of the organization as a guide to better behavior.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:A religion sets the bar, based on what God says. No one is going to reach that standard, ever. Because we aren't perfect.
Have you considered that this attitude may actually prevent some people from achieving their moral potential, rather than aspiring to it?
This is why I said the catholic church isn't for everyone. If I didn't agree with this view, I wouldn't be in the church. And I don't believe that if you don't believe it either, you shouldn't be in my church.
Posts: 1042 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
stihl, Am I correct that you are using "higher" not as a value judgment, but as a quantitative measure of the restrictions placed on you by the standard?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I must say I do not see how 'higher' is not a value judgement. Could you please explain what you mean by it?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: stihl, Am I correct that you are using "higher" not as a value judgment, but as a quantitative measure of the restrictions placed on you by the standard?
Yes. I've never said higher as a value judgement. I said different, many times. But higher in terms of what I just posted. The standards in society don't match those of my religion, there are more restrictions and a different set of behaviors expected of those in my faith. Which aren't expected in society.
Posts: 1042 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: If people outside your religion are coming closer to the standard set by your religion than those inside it, then plainly something is wrong with the religion, even if we should agree on the standard.
I do not agree with any of this. This is your bias.
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: I accept your point that it has yet to be shown in this thread that atheists are in fact more moral than theists; I don't have time to chase down those statistics again, but perhaps someone else could do it.
I never mentioned aethists, and statistics aren't the measure of who is moral and who is not.
Posts: 1042 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah. 'Higher', then, means 'more difficult to live up to'. I must say I do not see that as a worthwhile goal, so who cares? Ethics is not a competition to see who can bind themselves with the most tortuous set of restrictions. (If it were, incidentally, you should instantly convert to hinduism - "Look at me! I'm so moral I sleep on a bed of nails!") Ethics is the system of thought by which we produce good lives, for ourselves and others. Restrictions for their own sake are antithetical to that.
quote:I do not agree with any of this. This is your bias.
I do not see how you can disagree. There is some standard, X, which we get from somewhere. It could be general ethical philosophy, religious scripture, sheer random Internet trawling. A set A of people lives up to this standard more completely than another set B, who happen to share an organisation dedicated to making the B's live up to that standard. In what way is the organisation not failing at its self-appointed task?
quote:statistics aren't the measure of who is moral and who is not.
What measure do you suggest? Your own personal opinion, that well-known fount of impartiality?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
