quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: I'd like to see a secular method of raising children that includes the same sort of shared symbolism/mythology and community that religion offers.
Community is getting easier as different secular groups are forming. Hopefully it gets easier and easier in the future.
As for symbolism and mythology, our national history, I think, has more than enough of that. And if not, there's world history to dip in to.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Except none of your examples are unchecked. Unless this is the first time you've ever met or spoken to your neighbor, it's the untested prototype of the first calculator, and it's the first issue of the newspaper ever published.
If that's what you mean by checked then religious beliefs are definitely checked.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: If that's what you mean by checked then religious beliefs are definitely checked.
Checked as to their truth, or their usefulness? One does not necessarily need the other.
quote:No way, besides infallibility I don't think we've given the founding fathers any super powers yet.
He said symbolism and mythology. That doesn't mean we have to make the legends of our culture into gods.
There's already the story that George Washington cut down the cherry tree. And Ben Franklin showed that lightning was electricity.
How long until our legends say that Ben Franklin had electrical powers and George Washington was born from a tree? (His wooden teeth prove it!)
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: I'd like to see a secular method of raising children that includes the same sort of shared symbolism/mythology and community that religion offers.
Javert commented on this. But there are indeed communities, groups, and individuals working towards this goal. Humanism is one method. Here is the Humanist Manifesto. They do a good job of building communities and even hold larger events, some symbolic, as ways of bringing the community together.
In general though, I think we create our own communities and I don't think it's much of a stretch to raise children in a secular environment while providing some of those things religion provides. It's not simple, and I've definitely thought about this very thing before, but I don't have children though so anything I say will be speculation. I know that most of my friends are either atheists or agnostics or have serious problems with religion, and all the babies are just starting to come, so I'll let you know in a few years how it all goes. Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks for the links, Strider; fascinating stuff!
One thing: am I Doing It Wrong, or does the link to the panel discussion with Adams/Dawkins/Pinker/Diamond etc accidentally lead to one of the talks by Ramachandran?
Posts: 1595 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
that was just a test to see if people were clicking on the links.
I went to fix it, but the link was to a page on Richard Dawkins' webpage that had all 4 segments embedded. richarddawkins.net happens to be down right now, so I changed the link to the first of the 4 parts on youtube. the links to the rest will be easy to find from there. When RD's site is back up i'll change the link back to that.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Ah so, "whenever you can". That's interesting. [...] Are you sure that "whenever I can" is the real framework that actually informs your decisions? Maybe it's rather "whenever it would give me warm fuzzles and not be too inconvenient". But this "whenever I can" certainly does make for some nice claims on the forums, doesn't it.
There really are no gray areas in your philosophy at all, are there? Apparently she can either not help at all or give everything she has to help others, otherwise her moral code is utterly useless. Also note that you do not know what she has or hasn't done, so mocking it is rather unscientific, I would think.
I suggest you take another look at my post. I do not claim that there is no middle ground between "Let them eat cake" and "Your wish is my command, O lord and master". But I do claim that if you are going to assert that your moral code actually is "help whenever you can", then you cannot afford to be very far in the direction of telling people to eat cake. Since your wife clearly has not given up her interweb access to feed the African orphans, her actual moral code cannot be "help whenever I can", whatever she (or you) may say about it. Please note the distinction: I don't claim that this ought to be her moral code. I merely claim that in fact, as measured by actions and not words, it isn't. And it follows that what you said about the moral code derived from her religion was inaccurate; as a matter of measureable fact, she follows the general human code of "help whenever it's not too terribly inconvenient, especially if I can signal my caring to other people of my own class and thereby raise my status." We have a name for people who do any more than this: We call them saints.
quote:Judging from what I've seen, the parts about loving one another, respecting one another, treating others as you would wish to be treated, etc. And yes, I know those aren't specifically religious teachings, and I know the bible is chock full of horrible examples, but that's where she learned what she learned and so that's the framework she thinks in.
The difference between this, and learning morals by nontheistic socialisation, escapes me. Which part of this requires a belief in the supernatural? The two are, as you describe it, completely orthogonal. What would be the harm, then, in discarding that part of the belief which has no evidence, and keeping the ethics and whatnot? And before anyone starts in on ethics having no evidence either, you're wrong: Primate brains are hard-wired to treat the behaviour of their peers as evidence for the right way to act. When you are told "stealing is wrong", that is quite powerful evidence that stealing actually is wrong; when you see someone punished for stealing, even more so.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I don't claim that this ought to be her moral code. I merely claim that in fact, as measured by actions and not words, it isn't." But you don't know her actions, so how can you judge that? You are claiming there is no middle ground, if by your definitions failure to achieve the totality of a religious moral code means you're not following that code at all. According to you simply having the Internet immediately invalidates her moral code and reduces her to making casual contributions she can brag about. Dude, seriously?
A) I pay for our Internet access, and I have not commented on what my moral codes are. B) The Internet can be used to disseminate information and increase donations to charities, and you have no idea if she uses it for that purpose (she does not, I don't think, but the point is you never asked). C) For that matter, as far as you know she's living in a shack in Cambodia, devoting all her time to building villages and getting on the Red Cross' computer every now and then to cruise websites. Would she then be failing her moral code? C) Yes, her code was derived from her religion. The fact that it can be learned as easily from other sources doesn't change that. D) She does not make her actions public, never has. I referred to them, in a very vague way, when talking about deriving moral codes from religious instruction. I could just as easily have said she tries not to bear false witness. But you seem to be accusing her of doing good to impress others and you have absolutely no basis for that. You are judging her motives without knowing them, and I find that highly unscientific and needlessly inflammatory.
And damaging to your argument. By making unfounded distinctions and setting her up as a strawman (strawwoman?) you're not going to convince me or anyone reading this of anything, other than that you're not the person to talk to when this topic comes up. I urge you to read Strider's posts in this thread, and note that we actually seem to be talking.
quote:What would be the harm, then, in discarding that part of the belief which has no evidence, and keeping the ethics and whatnot?
What I'm asking is what's the harm in keeping the part of the belief that comforts her if it harms no one? She is not a suicide bomber, she does not vote for ideologues, she is not bending research to fit a sermon, she doesn't even attend church, and I doubt many of her friends could even tell you what denomination she is. Why stomp on her belief? Besides, hey, she might be right...
Zero tolerance rarely helps win an argument. Mostly it just pisses people off and makes them more defensive and less open to convincing.
[ July 31, 2009, 08:30 AM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:The difference between this, and learning morals by nontheistic socialisation, escapes me. Which part of this requires a belief in the supernatural? The two are, as you describe it, completely orthogonal. What would be the harm, then, in discarding that part of the belief which has no evidence, and keeping the ethics and whatnot?
Some people want to know "why" a given act is right or wrong, and won't accepted "because that's how you were socialized to act" as an answer.
quote:Primate brains are hard-wired to treat the behaviour of their peers as evidence for the right way to act. When you are told "stealing is wrong", that is quite powerful evidence that stealing actually is wrong; when you see someone punished for stealing, even more so.
Then would you agree that when you see someone worshipping God, that is powerful evidence that worshipping God is the right thing to do?
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Some people want to know "why" a given act is right or wrong, and won't accepted "because that's how you were socialized to act" as an answer.
The thing is, historically, people rarely actually turn to religion for moral truth. Instead, religion is used to justify the morals of the time. Two hundred years ago people were using the Bible as evidence that slavery was natural. Now they're using it to say the opposite. If people actually advocated following Biblical law they'd be stoning children to death for disrespecting their parents. If you're only using part of your religion, then "because I was socialized that way" is a major part of why you do what you do.
That said, in the past few hundred years, we've been moving towards ethical systems that ARE based on evidence and logic. And while they still hinge on a few axioms, those axioms are more universally accepted than "my God told me to do this."
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:What I'm asking is what's the harm in keeping the part of the belief that comforts her if it harms no one?
My take on this Chris, is that there is none. At least not a specific one. I'm saddened when people are misinformed or have false beliefs, but it's their right to do so. The harm is a theoretical one in that the person isn't as knowledgeable about the world as they could be. That's not the choice I would make for myself, but again, I personally have no problem with that and would never attack a person for those beliefs.
quote:That said, in the past few hundred years, we've been moving towards ethical systems that ARE based on evidence and logic. And while they still hinge on a few axioms, those axioms are more universally accepted than "my God told me to do this."
I mostly agree with this idea. I personally would never use the idea that "we're socialized to act a certain way" in defense of any moral code as Tres implies. I DO think that it's important to learn about our biology and neurology and our evolutionary history to understand how we're wired up, what our predispositions and tendencies are, how those tendencies developed, how they helped us in the past. What makes us feel good and why. what makes us feel bad and why. Why do we have certain senses of what is right and what is wrong and where did they came from? To look at the facts of our ancestry and our current society and the nature of it's communities. Not to say that we thus need to act on all those things, but to have a larger base of understanding of how we got here and why we are the way we are. Building off of that we can use rationality to the best of our abilities to come up with an ethical system. We take all those things about ourselves and realize that we need to live and co-exist with other people. What are the effects of our actions beyond ourselves. Much of my moral system is based off what i know of the sciences, built up on a base of empathy. Of understanding that what makes me, me, and what makes someone else someone else, is mostly happenstance, a trick of consciousness that ties me to this particular body. And so I try to minimize harm and maximize happiness or well being, not just for me, but as far as my influence can reach.
I do agree that there comes a point where assumptions need to be made at the root of all this, like Raymond says. I think what it comes down to is we have to accept certain facts about our biology that are inescapable. Those are the base axioms that I think I can't get rid of. But built upon that, we choose where to go from there.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Where did these universally accepted axioms come from and why are they so universally accepted?
Stuff along the lines of "pain is generally bad, happiness is generally good." People may disagree about the implications of that but I think you'll be hard pressed to find someone who disagrees with the statement itself.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:But you don't know her actions, so how can you judge that? You are claiming there is no middle ground, if by your definitions failure to achieve the totality of a religious moral code means you're not following that code at all.
If the one says "help whenever I can", and the other says "help whenever it is convenient", and their actual actions are the same, then I say that there is no information to be had from their assertions. What does the aspiration matter to the child who starves because it was too inconvenient to write a check? But boy, you can certainly look good by claiming to help "whenever you can". That is why I dislike this assertion: It smells very strongly of signalling, with only the faintest little whiff of actual altruism.
quote:For that matter, as far as you know she's living in a shack in Cambodia, devoting all her time to building villages and getting on the Red Cross' computer every now and then to cruise websites. Would she then be failing her moral code?
Yes, if it is as you stated. Time spent browsing is clearly time that can be used to help someone else.
I think you are misreading me; I am not criticising your wife's ethics, but your statement of what they are. "Whenever I can" is an extremely strong claim. It needs to be backed by correspondingly strong evidence. I am not making an attack on your wife's morals, but on your rhetoric.
quote:What I'm asking is what's the harm in keeping the part of the belief that comforts her if it harms no one?
What's the harm in discarding it, since it helps no one?
quote:Besides, hey, she might be right...
The suicide bombers might be right too. Unless you consider this to be a reason not to argue with them, please stop making this argument.
quote:Zero tolerance rarely helps win an argument. Mostly it just pisses people off and makes them more defensive and less open to convincing.
Fortunately, it's not necessary to win arguments with theists; I just have to wait for them to die out. But that aside, how much tolerance would you show for the proposition that the Earth is 6000 years old? When discussing matters of fact, tolerance is not a virtue.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
So it should be "whenever I can, when convenient." Frankly I thought that was understood; at no point was I claiming she was devoting every waking second to helping others. If that's what my statement suggested to you -- although I'd wager no one else on this forum would derive the same interpretation of it that you have -- than I retract and amend it. I'm still annoyed at the repeated implication of "you can certainly look good...". Is it impossible to help others at any level less than of Mother Teresa and not have social climbing as one of your motivations? (Then again, Mother Teresa wasted time keeping a diary. Clearly she was just doing her schtick to impress people.)
quote:What's the harm in discarding it, since it helps no one?
It does. It helps her.
quote:The suicide bombers might be right too. Unless you consider this to be a reason not to argue with them, please stop making this argument.
No.
Until you can deliver scientific evidence that there is no and never has been a god, I shall remain agnostic and leave the matter open. "She might be right" stays on the table unless you can prove conclusively that she is not.
Of course I can still argue with suicide bombers. They are criminals. See above posts. I don't care what anyone believes inside his or her head, but I have strong opinions about public actions whether they are guided by religious belief or not. For all I know Allah does smile upon their actions, but I don't care.
quote:But that aside, how much tolerance would you show for the proposition that the Earth is 6000 years old?
Depends. Is it what someone believes? No problem, don't care. Are they trying to add that to a public school curriculum? Then I will argue against it. See the difference? Personal belief doesn't affect me, public actions do.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:So it should be "whenever I can, when convenient." Frankly I thought that was understood; at no point was I claiming she was devoting every waking second to helping others.
Right. Since we are now agreed on this point, would you like to explain how this moral code differs from that of atheists? Because if it doesn't, I don't see how you can claim that it derives from religion; if it appears equally in theist and atheist, it cannot be related to theism.
quote:It does. It helps her.
If you asked her, "would you like to believe a hurtful truth, or a soothing lie?", I suspect she would go for the truth. Ought you not to act in accordance with her stated wishes? If she does say she'd prefer the lie, fine; I then wash my hands of her.
quote:Until you can deliver scientific evidence that there is no and never has been a god, I shall remain agnostic and leave the matter open. "She might be right" stays on the table unless you can prove conclusively that she is not.
Yet somehow, the particular case of gods is the only one in which you apply this remarkably low standard. Are you also agnostic about leprechauns, unicorns, and the little tweety birds that chirp around the heads of people who have taken a hard head-knock, but can only be recorded on cartoons? What's so special about gods?
Please notice: You may, perhaps, claim to be agnostic about these things; but if you met someone who actually believed in them, you would not consider them fully sane. You might or might not call for the psychiatrist, but I believe you would excuse yourself from the conversation and not call them back for a second date.
Let me also ask this question: What does it mean to believe? I believe that, were I to fall out a fourth-story window, I would be killed or injured. Consequently I try to avoid this scenario. What actions does your wife take, or not take, as a consequence of her beliefs? We've agreed it's not going to Cambodia and living in a shack; in fact it's apparently nothing to do with charity, since that's shared between theist and atheist alike. She doesn't go to church; she doesn't bend any research; she doesn't do suicide bombings. Just which part of her actions would change, if she changed her mind? Only the part, perhaps, where she professes out loud "I believe in something... maybe not a God, as such... I don't know, but like, something, you know? Something bigger than all of us..."? If so, I don't call that belief, I call it posturing. Real belief expects consequences and acts accordingly.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Since we are now agreed on this point, would you like to explain how this moral code differs from that of atheists?
I have not, at any point, suggested that it did. The concept itself did not derive from religious belief; that aspect of her personal moral code was derived from her religious upbringing. I'm arguing a single case, not defending all opf religionism.
If I asked that vaguely, probably the hurtful truth. But if the subject was whether she would have a consciousness after death, or whether Someone had a plan in mind for everything, I think she'd go for the lie.
quote:Yet somehow, the particular case of gods is the only one in which you apply this remarkably low standard. Are you also agnostic about leprechauns, unicorns, and the little tweety birds that chirp around the heads of people who have taken a hard head-knock, but can only be recorded on cartoons?
Yes, I am. Granted, I'm heavily weighted towards their nonexistence, I live my life as if they do not exist, I'm nearly certain they do not exist, but I do not assume for a fact they do not exist because I have no conclusive proof of that nonexistence. Consider me an agnostic (or practical atheist, or whatever the preferred term is these days) towards just about anything. I think any scientist should be.
The last question requires a more thoughtful response and I'll come back to it this evening when I get home.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yes, I am. Granted, I'm heavily weighted towards their nonexistence, I live my life as if they do not exist, I'm nearly certain they do not exist, but I do not assume for a fact they do not exist because I have no conclusive proof of that nonexistence. Consider me an agnostic (or practical atheist, or whatever the preferred term is these days) towards just about anything. I think any scientist should be.
Nowhere have I said that any probability should be set to zero. But there's such a thing as "negligibly small". Would you like to assign a numerical probability to the chance that these things exist? Say, one in a million? (Notice that this is rather higher than your chances of winning the lottery.) When done with that, is this chance larger or smaller than your probability estimate for your wife's religion being correct? If it's neither larger nor smaller, why do you treat the two beliefs differently? (Noticing again that if you met someone who genuinely believed in leprechauns, you would not go for the second date, on the very sensible grounds that this person is clearly not firing on all cylinders.)
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
For the record, I'd consider going out with a girl who believed in leprechauns assuming she was an otherwise attractive, funny, kind and/or smart. It'd be a mark against her, but everyone has things about them bug me a little bit, and a belief in leprechauns that, as you've noted is more 'posturing' than actual belief is far less annoying than other traits she might have.
My mindset for dating religious people in general largely boils down to "is the religion something that gives them comfort or something that they actually base decisions off of?"
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also for the record, Chris, I thought along the same lines as KoM with regards to the whole "helping others" moral code thing. The points he brought up are actually very common lines of argument regarding moral responsibility in modern ethics - see, for example, some of Peter Singer's more famous arguments regarding our duty to help others. ---- I've pretty much agreed with everything KoM has written on this page.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Just which part of her actions would change, if she changed her mind?
Probably very little. Her peace of mind would, I think, be altered, but her actions would likely remain the same. But of what use to her is doing so? You're trying to get me to prove why she shouldn't change her mind, but as she already believes what she believes and has no particular need to defend it, I would think the onus of proof would be on the person trying to effect the change. You're not trying to convince someone who's choosing between two options, you're trying to convince someone who chose one option a long time ago and has been happy with it. You're offering her uncertainty, a loss of contentment and a fear of death as a final end, why would it be worthwhile to her to suddenly agree with you after a lifetime of habit?
quote:Only the part, perhaps, where she professes out loud "I believe in something... maybe not a God, as such... I don't know, but like, something, you know? Something bigger than all of us..."?
Remember I mentioned the straw man thing? This would be an excellent, nicely condescending example. I have not listed her specific beliefs, other than mentioning a few beliefs she does not hold. That does not mean her own beliefs are not firm and defined, and private.
quote:When done with that, is this chance larger or smaller than your probability estimate for your wife's religion being correct?
Pretty much the same. And irrelevant to me.
quote:If it's neither larger nor smaller, why do you treat the two beliefs differently?
I don't, and I don't think I've suggested anywhere that I do. So?
quote:(Noticing again that if you met someone who genuinely believed in leprechauns, you would not go for the second date, on the very sensible grounds that this person is clearly not firing on all cylinders.)
Please stop declaring what I would and would not do, especially when you're consistently wrong. I get along fine with people who believe different things than I do. Fairies, tarot cards, angels, Objectivism, unicorns, ghosts, vampires, the innate superiority of any given political party or sports team, and, yes, leprechauns.
Does she simply believe they exist? Do they tell her to set fires, or harm people? Does she follow guidelines set down in a book written by leprechauns? Are those guidelines good ones? I might have to date her just to find out. If you only date scrupulously sane people, you have boring parties.
quote:Also for the record, Chris, I thought along the same lines as KoM with regards to the whole "helping others" moral code thing. The points he brought up are actually very common lines of argument regarding moral responsibility in modern ethics - see, for example, some of Peter Singer's more famous arguments regarding our duty to help others.
I'll have to go read Singer then, because I still don't get the point he was trying to make. As far as as can tell, he seems to be trying to strip away the need for religion in her actions. And to that extent he's right; every ethical code can be defined without religious involvement. But that wasn't where I started; I was talking about how she has no problem reconciling science and religion, and was explaining the usefulness of religion to her. I said:
quote:Teresa's framework already has an answer, which is that it is good to help others whenever you can. Doesn't matter whether she was taught that lesson by her father or her Father, it's one you learn when you're learning how to be a person.
She's not looking for answers to the meaning of life or what happens after she dies, she wants to know how to live and raise children and be a good person. Her religion provides that framework.
Could she have received the same teaching in a secular manner? Of course. But the fact remains that she did receive it that way, she does hold those beliefs, and picking apart my words to somehow prove that she doesn't meet her own religious strictures doesn't change that fact or lessen her belief.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'll have to go read Singer then, because I still don't get the point he was trying to make.
Adding: Mostly I got sidetracked by the amazing suggestion that because someone who professes a moral code to help others does not spend every waking moment and every ounce of personal resources helping others, in a way that few people have ever done, than that someone has utterly failed that religious code and is therefore really only following normal human ethics of doing good when it's really easy and someone will notice. I'm still confused by this.
The concept that it only counts as a religious code if you completely succeed at it right away is new to me. I kinda thought it was an ideal that followers were supposed to try to get closer to.
[ July 31, 2009, 07:55 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'll have to go read Singer then, because I still don't get the point he was trying to make.
Adding: Mostly I got sidetracked by the amazing suggestion that because someone who professes a moral code to help others does not spend every waking moment and every ounce of personal resources helping others, in a way that few people have ever done, than that someone has utterly failed that religious code and is therefore really only following normal human ethics of doing good when it's really easy and someone will notice. I'm still confused by this.
The concept that it only counts as a religious code if you completely succeed at it right away is new to me. I kinda thought it was an ideal that followers were supposed to try to get closer to.
I wasn't really coming at it from a religious angle, just the basic philosophical argument. It's late, so I'll do this quick and dirty, and then point you towards Singer's most famous article (not that I agree entirely with it, but it's very good food for thought).
Suppose you're walking by a pond, on your way to a job interview in your new $500 suit, and you see a toddler fall into the water. It's very clear from his thrashing that he can't swim and will soon drown. Most people would say that you have a duty to jump into the pond and save the small child, even if it means you'll miss your interview and completely ruin your $500 suit.
But back-up a moment - you purchased that suit just last night for this interview. That's $500 you spent on a suit that you could have donated to charity - specifically, to a charity that, with that $500, could certainly save a life of some child in a distant land that would die otherwise (via 100 mosquito nets in Africa, for example). You may not be able to point out the specific child that your $500 would save - but there's virtually no doubt that the $500 is the difference between life and death for at least one child - and possibly quite a few more than that.
Why is it okay to *not* save that unknown - but certainly real - kid in Africa, when you wouldn't say it's okay to not save the toddler in the pond?
This is basically the argument that Singer puts forth, although his has a fair bit more detail in it, of course. You can find his original essay on the topic herePosts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks for the link Jhai. Minor nitpick: Singer doesn't actually include the jacket in his drowning child scenario*. However, I do remember a similar situation being discussed in the book Cosmopolitanism by Kwame Appiah. Appiah may have been paraphrasing someone else though. Regardless, I think the addition of the jacket (I think it was $5000) makes the scenario more interesting and more difficult than Singer's scenario because it adds the option of letting the child drown and selling the non-ruined jacket to save more children elsewhere. Of course, it would be better to not buy such an expensive jacket in the first place.
* Forgive me if it actually is there but I read the whole essay once and reread the child scenario part and didn't see it.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's quite possible that you're right, Threads. There's a lot of variations of this basic argument in the literature (I wrote my senior philosophy thesis on this topic), and I haven't gone back to read Singer's original essay in quite awhile.
Anyways, my point was that the sort of argumentation presented by KoM upthread is very similar to this strand of ethics. And, while I don't ultimately agree with Singer, I think this sort of pushing based on axiomatic principles is a very good reality check on our moral beliefs.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Where did these universally accepted axioms come from and why are they so universally accepted?
I know you won't agree, but I think most of the axioms which are truly universal are biologically advantageous.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Probably very little. Her peace of mind would, I think, be altered, but her actions would likely remain the same. But of what use to her is doing so? You're trying to get me to prove why she shouldn't change her mind, but as she already believes what she believes and has no particular need to defend it, I would think the onus of proof would be on the person trying to effect the change. You're not trying to convince someone who's choosing between two options, you're trying to convince someone who chose one option a long time ago and has been happy with it. You're offering her uncertainty, a loss of contentment and a fear of death as a final end, why would it be worthwhile to her to suddenly agree with you after a lifetime of habit?
Wow, talk about status quo bias. Well, if she genuinely does not care about truth, then fine; there is no common ground for discussion. Should the disagreement ever become sufficiently important, it will have to be settled by machine guns and death camps. I neither jest nor threaten - I think it quite likely that the side of truth and reason would lose such a conflict; rather I make predictions based on what has happened in the past when differences could not be settled by discussion because one side did not care about truth.
quote:Does she simply believe they exist? Do they tell her to set fires, or harm people? Does she follow guidelines set down in a book written by leprechauns? Are those guidelines good ones? I might have to date her just to find out. If you only date scrupulously sane people, you have boring parties.
Bluntly, I don't believe you. Sorry to end the conversation, as presumably it will, but I don't.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:If you asked her, "would you like to believe a hurtful truth, or a soothing lie?", I suspect she would go for the truth. Ought you not to act in accordance with her stated wishes? If she does say she'd prefer the lie, fine; I then wash my hands of her.
You know, I think actually asking someone the question, "Would you rather know a hurtful truth or believe in a soothing lie about that truth?" is a trick question, not least because its answer is going to be a pretty poor response in terms of accuracy.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure I understand what you are getting at. Suppose I rephrase like so: "If your religion were false, would you like to know that, or would you prefer to go on believing a falsehood?" Is it still a trick question?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
More like simple physics. Objects at rest tend to stay at rest. You still have not demonstrated a compelling need for her to change. So why should she, other than to make you happy?
quote:Well, if she genuinely does not care about truth, then fine; there is no common ground for discussion.
She genuinely does not care about what you profess to be the truth. There's a difference. She does not believe that you get to decide what truth is for her.
quote:Should the disagreement ever become sufficiently important, it will have to be settled by machine guns and death camps. I neither jest nor threaten - I think it quite likely that the side of truth and reason would lose such a conflict; rather I make predictions based on what has happened in the past when differences could not be settled by discussion because one side did not care about truth.
I've written several hundred words in response to this, a couple of times now, and I've deleted it each time because I seriously have no idea how to respond to it. How did we get from my wife's beliefs to death camps?
quote:Bluntly, I don't believe you.
Interesting that you would be so unscientific, King of Men.
You could search for my posts on Hatrack to see if I'm generally tolerant of other people, or what I've previously written about religion. Members of this forum have met me in person, talked to me, spent time with me: TomD, Bob Scopatz, Icarus, Kwea. You could easily ask any of them if I'm the sort of person who would date a leprechaun-believer. Or you could ask me more about it to try to come to some sort of understanding as to why.
Instead, you have chosen your own unfounded belief of the truth of my statement, solely based on your own assumptions, without testing or examining that belief.
King of Men, how remarkably religious of you.
Tell me, if my tolerance of leprechaun-believers was true, would you like to know it, or would you prefer to go on believing a falsehood?
[ August 02, 2009, 10:16 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Bluntly, I don't believe you. Sorry to end the conversation, as presumably it will, but I don't.
...huh? What is it you don't believe? That scrupulously sane people make for uniformly boring people? Or that you have to date someone to figure out whether their religion impacts their lives in any meaningful way? One of those is hyperbole and the other seems pretty true to me. Neither makes much sense as a statement to flat out reject.
[ August 02, 2009, 10:27 PM: Message edited by: Raymond Arnold ]
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think realistically there's more of a range, then a defined set of beliefs, that a prospective dating partner would have to have. At least for me that is. And it's not so much about whether the person is an atheist or not, but more generally that someone for whom religion was an important part of their life would necessarily have such a different world view from me, which would probably permeate so much more than their specific religious beliefs that I doubt we'd be a good match. And so realistically I don't think I'd work out with someone unless they were an atheist, agnostic, or possibly non-religious but spiritually inclined. And even that last one is iffy, depending on the nature of their beliefs. Last year I dated a really great woman but who was really into Astrology, much more so than your normal every day astrology. And it was a huge turn off for me that she not only believed all that stuff, but brought it up in conversation regularly to explain all sorts of various aspects of life(how I was turning 29 and that was the year of Saturn, because it has a 29 year orbit and so that meant this coming year would be such and such kind of year, etc...), but I've dated other women whose spirituality didn't conflict with our ability to get along at all.
Again, it's not so much my atheism, but all the things about me, my life, my interests, etc...of which having an atheistic world view is one result. And this has mostly proven itself to be correct in that without specifically seeking out atheists, all of the women I've dated over the last few years have been non-religious. Granted, I come across so few women that ARE religious in general, and there are probably so many other variables involved(types of looks I might be attracted to, whatever conversation(s) sparked my interest, where I'm meeting people, etc...causation and correlation and all that) that it may not be completely fair for me to extrapolate any Strider universal dating truths from all this. And I also fully admit that it's possible I might be blind sided by someone with religious leanings and all my rules and predictions will fly out the window, love is funny like that. But I do think the prospects of this happening are slim. There's a difference between being friendly with and tolerant of people with opposing points of view and world views, and building a life with that person. I have plenty of friends who I disagree with vehemently about many issues...but I don't have sex with them.
It's worth mentioning though, that this will be something that's different for each person based on what they are looking for in a relationship. For me it's important because one of the things I want out of a relationship is to be able to converse with my significant other about science, and evolution and biology and the mind and the brain and religion(from an objective standpoint), about morality and ethics, and the fact is not only will I coexist better with a person who shares my general world view, but that's the kind of person I see myself falling for. I know many guys who when I talk about what I look for in a woman say things along the lines of "that's what guy friends are for, why would I want that in my girlfriend?"...to each their own.
All that being said, I'd totally give the Leprechaun believer a shot. If nothing else I'm sure the conversation would be interesting! And on a more serious note, if I was already interested in someone for whatever reasons, and they happened to be religious, I'd probably at least give a date or two a shot(assuming they were interested back) to further explore my feelings. I assume that someone for whom religion was an important part of their lives would have similar hesitations and weariness surrounding dating an atheist.
Also, Chris, I'm sorry that this has turned into a thread of you defending your wife's beliefs.
quote:Also, Chris, I'm sorry that this has turned into a thread of you defending your wife's beliefs.
No worries. I don't think I'm defending her beliefs -- which do not require my defense -- as much as I am defending the concept that not all religious belief needs to be vigorously stomped out.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Where did these universally accepted axioms come from and why are they so universally accepted?
Stuff along the lines of "pain is generally bad, happiness is generally good." People may disagree about the implications of that but I think you'll be hard pressed to find someone who disagrees with the statement itself.
Firstly - you didn't really answer the question. Where did that axiom come from and why is it accepted?
Secondly - I don't think that axiom is neccesarily correct; at a minimum it is incomplete. For one thing, it is extremely common, across many cultures, for people to believe it is moral to take on great personal pain for some abstract greater good.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I almost broke up with my husband when, after a discussion, I thought he was a moral relativist. Turns out, though, that he's just a moral non-congnivist. I think he's wrong, but at least it's a defensible position.
Religion-wise, we have no problems. He's an atheistic Hindu, as am I (after marrying him).
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
That was when we had been dating for less than a year, but yes, actually, I would have. More for what it would have implied about his mental ability & attention than for the actual actions resulting from such a belief - it would mean either he couldn't think through the implications of his stance on the subject or didn't consider ethics important enough to think through at all. Or was just dumb.
But I recognize that I was and am a bit of a fanatic about this subject. I mean, I was the captain of my university's Ethics Bowl debate team, and took the team to nationals every year. When I turned 21 I went out drinking with philosophy professors and apparently entertained everyone in the bar on the subject of moral epistemology while completely snockered.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:...huh? What is it you don't believe? That scrupulously sane people make for uniformly boring people? Or that you have to date someone to figure out whether their religion impacts their lives in any meaningful way?
I do not believe that Chris, on meeting a genuine, non-hypothetical leprechaun believer, would actually treat her the same way he treats someone with a socially acceptable wacky belief like weaksauce theism.
quote:She genuinely does not care about what you profess to be the truth. There's a difference. She does not believe that you get to decide what truth is for her.
But that is not what you have been arguing. You've been arguing that there's no reason to change these beliefs, period, because they give her comfort; you made no reference to truth. Now, if we're going to argue over actual evidence, then sure, my mere assertion is not enough; but that's not what we have been discussing. If I understand correctly, you do not yourself share your wife's beliefs. It presumably follows that you think her evidence, whatever it is, is not compelling. Do you disagree that beliefs should only be held on the grounds of evidence?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
KoM, do you read what you've written? The line of mine you just quoted was a direct response to your previous post:
quote:You: Wow, talk about status quo bias. Well, if she genuinely does not care about truth, then fine; there is no common ground for discussion. Should the disagreement ever become sufficiently important, it will have to be settled by machine guns and death camps. I neither jest nor threaten - I think it quite likely that the side of truth and reason would lose such a conflict; rather I make predictions based on what has happened in the past when differences could not be settled by discussion because one side did not care about truth.
Me: She genuinely does not care about what you profess to be the truth. There's a difference. She does not believe that you get to decide what truth is for her.
Italics mine. I made no reference to truth until you did.
I have been arguing that there is not reason sufficient to her to change her beliefs. There are plenty of reasons to change, but none you've presented yet would make such an adjustment to her life worthwhile or even necessary, to her. I have not suggested that there are no reasons, period, and I have used the word "compelling" several times. You kept asking about hurtful truths and comforting lies, but have not presented any reason sufficient for her to set aside what to her is a comforting truth.
Previously I was arguing that her beliefs do not conflict with science (for her) and later that her beliefs are harmless and even beneficial (to her) but the argument keeps jumping around.
quote:If I understand correctly, you do not yourself share your wife's beliefs. It presumably follows that you think her evidence, whatever it is, is not compelling.
True.
quote: Do you disagree that beliefs should only be held on the grounds of evidence?
I think that beliefs should be based on evidence, but I accept that not all of them are. And as long as those beliefs do not affect legislation, cause wars, or persecute nonbelievers, I am not at all concerned with what people around me might personally believe.
quote:I do not believe that Chris, on meeting a genuine, non-hypothetical leprechaun believer, would actually treat her the same way he treats someone with a socially acceptable wacky belief like weaksauce theism.
Again you've established a belief in something you have not tested or examined despite having avenues to do so, a practice you've been consistently arguing against with more than a little scorn. Pot, this is Mr. Kettle...
The only thing I can imagine is that you have a set notion of how an intelligent person would act, and my refusal to conform to that notion must mean that I am, for whatever bizarre reason, lying to you.
Maybe we may need more definition here. How, precisely, would your genuine, non-hypothetical leprechaun believer act? Am I at dinner with a pleasant companion who, when asked, would admit to a belief that leprechauns may have existed in some form before launching into a conversation about Irish mythology? Does she assure me that they do exist, and then leaves it at that? Does she tell me about how she tries to live her life by the code of the leprechauns, which teaches us to love one another and be good? Or is she darting this way and that, drooling and trying to catch one of the little buggers in the corner of her eye so she can nab him with the bread basket?
I suspect that to you, anyone holding a "wacky" belief is potentially a wild-eyed fanatic and that could be the source of our problem here. I would indeed have problems dating a fanatic, whatever their beliefs, even if I shared them. But it would be the fanaticism that would turn me off, not necessarily the belief itself.
To the best of my knowledge, I do not know any people who sincerely believe in the existence of leprechauns. I do know people who believe in ghosts, a fixed future that can be foretold, telekinesis, the healing power of crystals, and more than a few friends of mine may say they don't really believe in fairies or angels but I think they're kidding themselves. I also know people in just about every religious faith and denomination. I tend to react to all of them in response to how much of their faith they choose to foist on me.
Near as I can tell, you're trying to get me to admit that someone with religious beliefs is on a par with an insane person. What I'm trying to get you to understand is that I don't care, and the nature of their belief does not dictate my reaction as much as the outward manifestation of that belief. Everyone is a little crazy, in one direction or another.
[ August 04, 2009, 04:46 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I have been arguing that there is not reason sufficient to her to change her beliefs. There are plenty of reasons to change, but none you've presented yet would make such an adjustment to her life worthwhile or even necessary, to her. I have not suggested that there are no reasons, period, and I have used the word "compelling" several times.
Ok, we appear to have a bit of a disconnect, here. It looks to me as though we agree that beliefs should be based on evidence, and also that your wife's beliefs are not based on evidence. To me, this is a compelling reason to drop them, right there; these beliefs are plain untrue, and should not be held by anyone.
"Promoting less than maximally accurate beliefs is sabotage; do not do it to anyone unless you would also slash their tires." If I found my wife believing something I thought factually mistaken, I would not consider it loving to just let it pass. Perhaps, after discussing the evidence, I might find that it was I who had been mistaken; but rational agents should not disagree on factual questions.
About leprechauns, the hypothetical believer puts out milk for them every evening, and attributes any lucky event to their influence. I note in passing that this is actually a bit more of a belief, in the strong sense that means something more than just saying "I believe X", than your wife apparently has, since you're not able to identify any particular behaviour that would change if your wife deconverted.
quote:what to her is a comforting truth.
Previously I was arguing that her beliefs do not conflict with science (for her)
There is no "truth for her" or "conflict for her". Either a thing is true or it is not true. When someone has their own truth, we refer to them as 'insane' and put them in asylums, unless of course their "personal truth" happens to be socially acceptable.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have to ask, Jhai, why a belief moral relativism would denote a flaw in one's mental ability. I've thought it through at length and I thought it made the most sense. (not being snarky--genuinely curious).
Posts: 1314 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Ok, we appear to have a bit of a disconnect, here. It looks to me as though we agree that beliefs should be based on evidence, and also that your wife's beliefs are not based on evidence. To me, this is a compelling reason to drop them, right there; these beliefs are plain untrue, and should not be held by anyone.
My wife would disagree on whether her beliefs are based on evidence. I would disagree that such beliefs are inherently harmful in all cases, in all degrees.
Plus (and you'll hate this) we don't know her beliefs are "plainly untrue," we only know that we cannot prove or disprove them and that, based on the evidence we have seen, they are highly unlikely. As we cannot prove it true my position is that we cannot base scientific theories, social mores or legislation on any one religious faith. But as we cannot conclusively prove them untrue, it doesn't bother me if people choose to believe in them.
quote:About leprechauns, the hypothetical believer puts out milk for them every evening, and attributes any lucky event to their influence.
Wouldn't bother me until she began insisting that I also believe in them, or started going door to door to spread her belief, or if she started attributing lucky events to the sacrifices she was making to them of local schoolchildren.
quote:[...]if your wife deconverted.
Deconverted? As she was raised with this religious belief I don't think she was ever converted. Indoctrinated, perhaps.
quote:There is no "truth for her" or "conflict for her". Either a thing is true or it is not true. When someone has their own truth, we refer to them as 'insane' and put them in asylums, unless of course their "personal truth" happens to be socially acceptable.
We don't assign anyone to asylums for their beliefs, not until they act on those beliefs in a way that negatively impacts others.
The fundamental difference here, which I keep returning to, is that as long as someone's actions are harmless or beneficial I do not care in the slightest what their beliefs are. Clearly you do not agree, and I don't see the two of us changing our stances any time soon. Or dating the same people.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Launchywiggin: I have to ask, Jhai, why a belief moral relativism would denote a flaw in one's mental ability. I've thought it through at length and I thought it made the most sense. (not being snarky--genuinely curious).
My most charitable response to you is that you probably think of the term differently than I do (not being snarky here either).
Moral relativism in the strict philosophical sense means that you deny that there are any objective moral truths, but believe that there are moral truths for particular individuals or cultures. This leads to all sorts of lovely end results, such as the fact that baby-torture just for fun could be perfectly morally right and correct for some people or some cultures, even if it's not okay for you. And that's leaving aside entirely the rather squishy borders of what constitutes a culture, and how something can be true for one culture and false for another (and what if you belong to multiple cultures).
I don't want to argue much about this subject here on Hatrack - any more than I feel the need to debate with the non-atheists among us -, but, in case you haven't run across it, here's a good article presenting the various arguments regarding moral relativism.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
