I remember hearing that C9 would go into the ideas of religion, science and the like....As such and also given that we are mostly mature here--All of us being adults or almost adults--I was wondering if we could have a respectful discussion of religion. Not a debate or a quarrel--but a discussion on theology and various belief systems and the like? I am a Catholic by birth, though I am a seeker of truth and thus open to all ideas. I believe firmly in the existence of God, but I am not sure what interpretation of Him/Her/It is correct for there are so many--That is just my personal belief.
I am a seeker of truth as well, but without evidence, I am limited to my imagination. I was born into a family that didn't put too much pressure on religion. My father is Jewish and my mother is Catholic, but they never found a balanced view of the two faiths that I could partake in. The two religions were far too contrasted. I don't want to pick a fight, and certainly don't want to debate, but I would be more than happy to discuss what I feel is true and even indulge in what others believe. Although, I wouldn't know where to start. It's hard to dive into a topic so vast, but is there anything you personally wanted to discuss Perceval?
I don't see the harm but if it starts to get out of hand we will have to rethink it.
I agree with you Percival. I think God and his message is different for everyone. It comes down to your background and what you think. I believe in god and the message of heaven but as a scientist I am suppose to question, hence I have come up with my own ideas and stories. Creation is one story that I have my own about but I have also maintained many of the originals, like the rustication and birth of Christ.
It just boils down to you as an individual and what you think. I hope that helped :)
I had this discussion with Katie recently, actually.
In the past, rules forbid talking of religion and politics just because those always tend to get out of hands. But, with C9, it would be truly hypocrite to prohibit that since the heart of C9 lies in the diversity of religions and how religion clashes with science.
That said, that C9 story would probably take a while before materializing. I'm even considering a simpler story to start the series, with those elements in it but downplayed, because I need more time with the original story to really merge all those ideas I have going in a way that it's not a disaster.
But, even that, C9 seems to be even more far away than expected just because of how things have been playing for us. Still, it is something that we will definitely release one day and it does explore religion at its core, how diverse yet similar things can be in all religious systems, and how they affect our lives.
I'm too a believer of God, but find it hard to believe in religion no questions asked. I've always found myself torn by this, and it's this internal battle exactly what made me come up with the concept of C9.
Again, it would be really hypocrite from us to forbid a discussion like this, but keep it civilized, folks. :)
If you are interested in new thoughts and perspectives about this, I would HIGHLY RECOMMEND reading the book "Way of the Peaceful Warrior" by Dan Millman. They made a movie out of it 3 years ago, which was very good, simply called "Peaceful Warrior". You should also read Eckhart Tolle's book "The Power of Now". This changed my whole perspective on things, and really got me thinking. I hope these will be as helpful to you as they have been for me. I've heard these things described as New Thought, or New Age. If you don't have time to read the books right now, just rent the movie. This should spark some interest. It is amazing how crazy our thought processes can be, and how we can actually work against ourselves. The concept of "God" is also covered in these. It really changed my thinking around. If you want any more info or books about this, let me know. I have found some really interesting stuff.
(Posted on: October 04, 2011, 09:54:10 AM)
I also started out Catholic, but over time wanted to search out more ideas.
One faith, if "outdated" I'm becoming very interested in as of late is Gnosticism.
Historically, religion has always been a means for the few to control the many. I don't think it is any different today.
That was a rule I was glad to get rid of! Talk about it all you like, just no starting religious e-wars ;)
Myself, I was raised Catholic, and technically still am, but I only ever go to church for Christmas & Easter, and the occasional wedding, and only then because my family goes. There are too many things I disagree with the Catholic Church's stance on to really feel like I belong there.
I'm not big on religion as an institution overall, really. I believe in God, but I don't feel like I need a third party to facilitate my relationship to God.
Quote from: Big C from Cauney island on October 04, 2011, 07:59:03 AM
If you are interested in new thoughts and perspectives about this, I would HIGHLY RECOMMEND reading the book "Way of the Peaceful Warrior" by Dan Millman. They made a movie out of it 3 years ago, which was very good, simply called "Peaceful Warrior". You should also read Eckhart Tolle's book "The Power of Now". This changed my whole perspective on things, and really got me thinking. I hope these will be as helpful to you as they have been for me. I've heard these things described as New Thought, or New Age. If you don't have time to read the books right now, just rent the movie. This should spark some interest. It is amazing how crazy our thought processes can be, and how we can actually work against ourselves. The concept of "God" is also covered in these. It really changed my thinking around. If you want any more info or books about this, let me know. I have found some really interesting stuff.
(Posted on: October 04, 2011, 09:54:10 AM)
I also started out Catholic, but over time wanted to search out more ideas.
The Power of Now was a book that inspired my fav band's last studio album, Marillion's "Happiness is the Road". The songs have some powerful lyrics in them.
I think in general whatever you believe in should be something that motivates you to be a better person.
Religion is more fun as a historical study or as an observer of human curiosity. To practice it is often an exercise in madness.
Bt
C.S. Lewis's "Screwtape Letters" is actually a really fascinating observation of religion. Definitely worth a read. He really understood quite a lot about why people behave the way that they do under religious influences.
Religion is like a [censored].
It's fine to have one.
It's fine to be proud of it.
But please don't whip it out in public and start waving it around.
And PLEASE don't try to shove it down my children's throats.
Quote from: Blackthorne on October 04, 2011, 04:22:23 PM
Religion is more fun as a historical study or as an observer of human curiosity. To practice it is often an exercise in madness.
Bt
Some people can't deal with nihilism. :P I think it's good that those people have a different, more meaningful (in their eyes) worldview they can cling to. :) I don't need it though; I find that no religious doctrine I have examined makes sense to me and I feel more comfortable with nihilism and atheism.
Lambonius, unlike you, I don't need to spell it out.
One more violation and you're suspended.
Quote from: Deloria on October 04, 2011, 06:10:39 PM
Quote from: Blackthorne on October 04, 2011, 04:22:23 PM
Religion is more fun as a historical study or as an observer of human curiosity. To practice it is often an exercise in madness.
Bt
Some people can't deal with nihilism. :P I think it's good that those people have a different, more meaningful (in their eyes) worldview they can cling to. :) I don't need it though; I find that no religious doctrine I have examined makes sense to me and I feel more comfortable with nihilism and atheism.
If life is meaningless, why is it worth protecting?
Quote from: Sir Perceval of Daventry on October 04, 2011, 06:38:31 PM
Quote from: Deloria on October 04, 2011, 06:10:39 PM
Quote from: Blackthorne on October 04, 2011, 04:22:23 PM
Religion is more fun as a historical study or as an observer of human curiosity. To practice it is often an exercise in madness.
Bt
Some people can't deal with nihilism. :P I think it's good that those people have a different, more meaningful (in their eyes) worldview they can cling to. :) I don't need it though; I find that no religious doctrine I have examined makes sense to me and I feel more comfortable with nihilism and atheism.
If life is meaningless, why is it worth protecting?
It was made very clear that this isn't an ideological debate, but rather a place where people can explain their views. :P
It's important to remember that religion and spirituality are often nowadays two completely different things. Religion has become something that instead of supporting spirituality, rather became the epitome of man-made tradition and ritual that completely destroyed the entire point of spirituality. It became more of a rulebook and rights and wrongs when all that completely misses the whole point.
And that's all I'm gonna say in this thread because religion threads aren't fun.
Quote from: MusicallyInspired on October 04, 2011, 09:29:37 PM
It's important to remember that religion and spirituality are often nowadays two completely different things. Religion has become something that instead of supporting spirituality, rather became the epitome of man-made tradition and ritual that completely destroyed the entire point of spirituality. It became more of a rulebook and rights and wrongs when all that completely misses the whole point.
Well said, man. Very true.
Bt
Quote from: Sir Perceval of Daventry on October 04, 2011, 06:38:31 PM
Quote from: Deloria on October 04, 2011, 06:10:39 PM
Quote from: Blackthorne on October 04, 2011, 04:22:23 PM
Religion is more fun as a historical study or as an observer of human curiosity. To practice it is often an exercise in madness.
Bt
Some people can't deal with nihilism. :P I think it's good that those people have a different, more meaningful (in their eyes) worldview they can cling to. :) I don't need it though; I find that no religious doctrine I have examined makes sense to me and I feel more comfortable with nihilism and atheism.
If life is meaningless, why is it worth protecting?
Why would it not be worth protecting? Just because one is an atheist, doesn't mean they have to forfeit their right to live. Even as animals, humans have to sustain their well-being as a species. Even without an order governing over us, we shouldn't be like lemmings walking off a cliff, because life is meaningless. We've already come so far with technology, should we give that up because there's a possibility of a present state of nihilism in this world?
Just to affirm my intentions, I'm not debating, but I'd rather hear what someone thinks of nihilism and of the questions that I asked. They were not rhetorical questions.
(Posted on: October 05, 2011, 01:15:52 AM)
Quote from: KatieHal on October 04, 2011, 01:41:46 PM
There are too many things I disagree with the Catholic Church's stance on to really feel like I belong there.
I'm not big on religion as an institution overall, really. I believe in God, but I don't feel like I need a third party to facilitate my relationship to God.
Amen! ;)
I'd also have to disagree with anyone who makes a blanket claim that atheists somehow automatically think that life is meaningless. You don't have to believe that life continues in some way after you die just to give your current existence some kind of purpose. Even those who do believe in life after death still put a great deal of emphasis on the effect their actions will have on their children, grandchildren, and other people in addition to whatever they believe will happen after they die.
Quote from: wilco64256 on October 04, 2011, 11:45:43 PM
I'd also have to disagree with anyone who makes a blanket claim that atheists somehow automatically think that life is meaningless. You don't have to believe that life continues in some way after you die just to give your current existence some kind of purpose. Even those who do believe in life after death still put a great deal of emphasis on the effect their actions will have on their children, grandchildren, and other people in addition to whatever they believe will happen after they die.
Deloria specifically mentioned nihilism--And that was what I was addressing. Nihilism is separate from Atheism; they can sometimes both be believed but you don't have to be a Nihilist to be an Atheist. An Atheist simply doesn't believe in God or chooses not to; and likely doesn't believe thus in any afterlife. A Nihilist believes life to be meaningless, purposeless. I find it a very negative way of viewing the world. One can be an Atheist and still believe life has value.
I honestly don't consider it to be negative. :P It's just a different way of viewing things.
And lemmings don't actually kill themselves intentionally. :P It's the result of their migratory behavior. Because they're driven by strong biological urges, some species of lemmings may migrate in large groups when population density becomes too great. In these cases, they may jump into a body of water and attempt to swim across it. They can of course drown if it's too much for them to take, but that isn't the idea. :P
Also, this is my last foray into this thread. :P
To play devil's advocate for a moment, there's no reason to kill yourself just because everything is meaningless. Things without meaning can still have other positive aspects. I wouldn't say that watching comedy films is particularly meaningful, but people still do it because it's fun.
Or, to put it another way: theists or humanists would ask nihilists, "If everything is meaningless, why carry on living?" A nihilist could reply, "Well, why on earth would I want to die right now?"
Quote from: darthkiwi on October 05, 2011, 04:01:36 AM
Or, to put it another way: theists or humanists would ask nihilists, "If everything is meaningless, why carry on living?" A nihilist could reply, "Well, why on earth would I want to die right now?"
Exactly, my point. Nihilism and Atheism may be different, but they both express the same level of understanding. Atheists have no God, and Nihilists have no order to their world. That we're basically living in a 'spiritual' anarchy. No consequences for our actions, and no rewards for our virtues. But I must bring this up again, even if this world was created from a Big Bang (or Cosmic Oil Spill, as I like to call it) and humans had evolved from the bacterial puss that degrades at the bottom of a cesspool, just look at how far we've come. That's why I asked, would it really be worth it to quit now?
Also, I knew about the lemmings, Deloria. I was just using it as a metaphor, but thank you for correcting me. :)
Though, I would admit from my own experience, from the outside looking in, religion does provide an alleged purpose and a meaning to all the things that we do not understand. That is definitely more appealing than believing that there is no purpose and that all of this was an accident, but it defines a certain level of pride. I myself, don't like the feeling of not having faith (it's depressing), but to force myself to believe in something that I absolutely don't believe doesn't make it any better.
Quote from: Sir Perceval of Daventry on October 05, 2011, 02:03:54 AM
One can be an Atheist and still believe life has value.
I don't want to stoke the flames much longer on this specific topic of discussion, but could you give an example? I too felt like a lack of purpose and a lack of a God that controls all things went hand in hand. On a daily basis, we humans find a much deeper meaning and purpose in our life. Maybe not in the beginning, but maybe after one becomes a father, he feels like he needs to protect his family for as long as he can. Or a man who takes pride in his work and hopes to make a difference in the world. The list can go on, but would you not say that a God is there to control that which humans can not, and also provides a purpose that we do not fully understand as of yet? It's fine if an Atheist still believes that life has a purpose, but to be honest, I don't think there would be much left to cling on to without a God. They'd already be a borderline nihilist, in my opinion.
This brings to mind one of my favorite lines from the show Angel.
"If nothing we do matters, then all that matters is what we do."
If there is no greater meaning from God or religion or the like, then here, today, and now, are the only things that possibly could have meaning. But not in the context of God or your soul, merely in the context of what you choose to do and how you choose to treat your fellow man. Your time is limited, so why not make the most of it?
Lemmings was a sweet game. We should talk about that.
Quote from: Fierce Deity on October 05, 2011, 05:35:47 AM
Quote from: Sir Perceval of Daventry on October 05, 2011, 02:03:54 AM
One can be an Atheist and still believe life has value.
I don't want to stoke the flames much longer on this specific topic of discussion, but could you give an example? I too felt like a lack of purpose and a lack of a God that controls all things went hand in hand. On a daily basis, we humans find a much deeper meaning and purpose in our life. Maybe not in the beginning, but maybe after one becomes a father, he feels like he needs to protect his family for as long as he can. Or a man who takes pride in his work and hopes to make a difference in the world. The list can go on, but would you not say that a God is there to control that which humans can not, and also provides a purpose that we do not fully understand as of yet? It's fine if an Atheist still believes that life has a purpose, but to be honest, I don't think there would be much left to cling on to without a God. They'd already be a borderline nihilist, in my opinion.
...but you have provided your own counter-examples: a father need not believe in God in order to value new life or his family. Our emotions and values are not wholly contingent upon a faith in a deity. If we believe there is no God, it does not make the "sky" less "blue" or "love" less "love". We can ask what defines the abstract values when one sets aside God. That is a harder question to answer for things like "justice" for instance.
One method of defining things that has served society well for a while is the general consensus of the masses (this one works well for the same reason that the sky remains blue: we've all agreed that that frequency of light is blue and that thing in that general direction is usually blue), but I think we can all think of problems with that one.
An atheist who believes life has no purpose is not JUST an atheist. He's already accepted a basic tenet of nihilism (though I believe there are a couple more to go). An atheist simply doesn't believe there is a God: he may still assign any atheistic or God-independent teleology he likes to life.
An atheist can just as readily be an aesthete, an ascetic, a humanist, or a hedonist as he can be a nihilist. Now, if you want to argue those points, you may, but it's a different argument from "rejection of God is rejection of all value".
Quote from: Delling on October 05, 2011, 07:31:55 AM
Quote from: Fierce Deity on October 05, 2011, 05:35:47 AM
Quote from: Sir Perceval of Daventry on October 05, 2011, 02:03:54 AM
One can be an Atheist and still believe life has value.
I don't want to stoke the flames much longer on this specific topic of discussion, but could you give an example? I too felt like a lack of purpose and a lack of a God that controls all things went hand in hand. On a daily basis, we humans find a much deeper meaning and purpose in our life. Maybe not in the beginning, but maybe after one becomes a father, he feels like he needs to protect his family for as long as he can. Or a man who takes pride in his work and hopes to make a difference in the world. The list can go on, but would you not say that a God is there to control that which humans can not, and also provides a purpose that we do not fully understand as of yet? It's fine if an Atheist still believes that life has a purpose, but to be honest, I don't think there would be much left to cling on to without a God. They'd already be a borderline nihilist, in my opinion.
...but you have provided your own counter-examples: a father need not believe in God in order to value new life or his family. Our emotions and values are not wholly contingent upon a faith in a deity. If we believe there is no God, it does not make the "sky" less "blue" or "love" less "love". We can ask what defines the abstract values when one sets aside God. That is a harder question to answer for things like "justice" for instance.
I was going to stop posting in this thread, but you're awesome and make me want to say things back. :( We should totally fall back on wholly unsatisfactory sophistic definitions for things like "justice"! :D
This thread is like Philosophy 101.
Yeah, I don't see how atheists can be "hopeless". Some people just have no fears. They know they are here, they know they have a stretch of life, and they are here to enjoy it, firmly believing that when it's over, it's over. That would be a reason enough to press on and enjoy life to the fullest, that in itself, can be more than enough meaning to someone.
I myself am not sure what's there beyond death. I want to think that there's something, but what if it's just "unplug the cable, it ends" --a notion that terrifies me to no end. So, in that sense, life can even have more meaning because It's all I could have! And thus, I want to strive to do it all and leave my mark.
So, I think it's very easy to find meaning in life even if you don't believe in a god or what comes after.
Quote from: Cez on October 05, 2011, 01:56:19 PM
I myself am not sure what's there beyond death. I want to think that there's something, but what if it's just "unplug the cable, it ends" --a notion that terrifies me to no end.
Hell, I'm so terrified by that same notion I blogged about it (http://katiehal.wordpress.com/2011/09/14/counterpoint-i-dont-wanna-die/). (Shameless plug ftw!)
Quote from: Cez on October 05, 2011, 01:56:19 PM
They know they are here, they know they have a stretch of life, and they are here to enjoy it, firmly believing that when it's over, it's over. That would be a reason enough to press on and enjoy life to the fullest, that in itself, can be more than enough meaning to someone.
This = me.
Quote from: KatieHal on October 05, 2011, 02:11:25 PM
Quote from: Cez on October 05, 2011, 01:56:19 PM
I myself am not sure what's there beyond death. I want to think that there's something, but what if it's just "unplug the cable, it ends" --a notion that terrifies me to no end.
Hell, I'm so terrified by that same notion I blogged about it (http://katiehal.wordpress.com/2011/09/14/counterpoint-i-dont-wanna-die/). (Shameless plug ftw!)
Build a pyramid?*
*: I realize this could come off as very hyper-intellectual and dismissive, but it's purpose is to sarcastically point out that the way people traditionally deal with that fear is by attempting to accomplish something lasting that will outlive them. :) No offense intended.
If you pull the plug, disconnect the cable and that's it - who cares? You wouldn't. You wouldn't know the difference. If you want an afterlife, do amazing things right here and right now. Too many people spend their mortal lives worrying about what kind of afterlife they'll get. Always worrying about "their reward". I'm more worried about doing things that matter here and now. They could matter to a million people, or they could matter to five people. It doesn't matter; if you do one thing that affects people in a positive way, that kind of action will live on long after you've turned to dust.
Bt
Quote from: Delling on October 05, 2011, 07:31:55 AM
Quote from: Fierce Deity on October 05, 2011, 05:35:47 AM
Quote from: Sir Perceval of Daventry on October 05, 2011, 02:03:54 AM
One can be an Atheist and still believe life has value.
I don't want to stoke the flames much longer on this specific topic of discussion, but could you give an example? I too felt like a lack of purpose and a lack of a God that controls all things went hand in hand. On a daily basis, we humans find a much deeper meaning and purpose in our life. Maybe not in the beginning, but maybe after one becomes a father, he feels like he needs to protect his family for as long as he can. Or a man who takes pride in his work and hopes to make a difference in the world. The list can go on, but would you not say that a God is there to control that which humans can not, and also provides a purpose that we do not fully understand as of yet? It's fine if an Atheist still believes that life has a purpose, but to be honest, I don't think there would be much left to cling on to without a God. They'd already be a borderline nihilist, in my opinion.
...but you have provided your own counter-examples: a father need not believe in God in order to value new life or his family. Our emotions and values are not wholly contingent upon a faith in a deity. If we believe there is no God, it does not make the "sky" less "blue" or "love" less "love". We can ask what defines the abstract values when one sets aside God. That is a harder question to answer for things like "justice" for instance.
One method of defining things that has served society well for a while is the general consensus of the masses (this one works well for the same reason that the sky remains blue: we've all agreed that that frequency of light is blue and that thing in that general direction is usually blue), but I think we can all think of problems with that one.
An atheist who believes life has no purpose is not JUST an atheist. He's already accepted a basic tenet of nihilism (though I believe there are a couple more to go). An atheist simply doesn't believe there is a God: he may still assign any atheistic or God-independent teleology he likes to life.
An atheist can just as readily be an aesthete, an ascetic, a humanist, or a hedonist as he can be a nihilist. Now, if you want to argue those points, you may, but it's a different argument from "rejection of God is rejection of all value".
Very well put. My counter-examples show what people live for once they are already living though. When people start living, is when they find their own purpose in their own life, but what about the overall "purpose" that religion tries to establish? Is this a test from an outsider seeing how humans operate, or is this a holy war over the souls of humans? Those are the theories that I think people get engulfed in when discussing religion, but I'd rather stay away from watching The Matrix a bunch of times and then using it as an example. I feel like everyone has already established the way that I see life. With me, it's about the here and now. Although I'm affected by regret, I try to think how I can live a better life and how I can achieve my own goals. This is my purpose, but when someone says that God has a plan for me, are they saying that God has a plan that coincides with my plan, or that there is a bigger "plan" that I don't know about?
Quote from: KatieHal on October 05, 2011, 02:11:25 PM
Quote from: Cez on October 05, 2011, 01:56:19 PM
I myself am not sure what's there beyond death. I want to think that there's something, but what if it's just "unplug the cable, it ends" --a notion that terrifies me to no end.
Hell, I'm so terrified by that same notion I blogged about it (http://katiehal.wordpress.com/2011/09/14/counterpoint-i-dont-wanna-die/). (Shameless plug ftw!)
An interesting read. I only have one thing to say though.
"In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes." - Benjamin Franklin
You always have taxes to take your mind off things.
I really love that scene in Meet Joe Black when he hears that saying about death and taxes and is so super fascinated by it.
Quote from: Fierce Deity on October 05, 2011, 06:35:53 PM
Very well put. My counter-examples show what people live for once they are already living though. When p People start living is when they find their own purpose in their own life, but what about the overall "purpose" that religion tries to establish? [...] With me, it's about the here and now. Although I'm affected by regret, I try to think how I can live a better life and how I can achieve my own goals. This is my purpose [...]
[emphasis added obviously]
Ok, here's the thing: your counter-examples are just as valid as ways of living, period, as they are as you claim (to paraphrase) ways the living live. To make this clear, I could just as easily claim that your purposes of living a better life and attempting to achieve your own goals lack definition, may never get anywhere, etc. Essentially, you can't tell the father that dedicating his life to his family isn't living or the business man that trying to make a difference in the world through his work isn't living. There are tons of people who dedicate themselves to "living the American dream"--high school football star, college athlete, white-collar job with picket fence and family--or some modification thereof. Is it fair for you to say to them that they aren't living yet?? Why? They are simply trying to achieve their own goals--their goals may be trite or cliche but by taking them up and personalizing them, they have made them their own.
The overall purpose that religion tries to establish? It either helps or hinders, validates or rejects, a person's own goals for his own life. Sometimes, people can be disjoint about this: claim a belief system but live another way, other times they can shop around until they find a Christian church or other faith that will accept their chosen way of life. *shrugs* Religion can be as much or as little of an additional ornament or accessory in your life as you choose to agree with and act on it.
Quote from: Fierce Deity on October 05, 2011, 06:35:53 PM
...but when someone says that God has a plan for me, are they saying that God has a plan that coincides with my plan, or that there is a bigger "plan" that I don't know about?
This is something I myself have butted heads with when it comes to religion.
People mean different things when they say that.
Some mean that God has a perfect, moral plan for everyone's life. Deviation from said plan is a sin. Since what you're doing is clearly amoral and/or a sin (some will quote you chapter and verse for this part; others won't), you should jump back on the bandwagon before you get left behind.
Others mean it in a much more commiserative or compassionate way. If something bad happens in their own or somebody else's life, they may dismissively yet encouragingly say: "Well, it's all part of God's plan."
Their meaning may be situational and it may be utterly sincere, but no one should be allowed to play prophet and tell you what God's plan for your life is and hold you to it and demand your obedience (and believe me when I tell you from my own personal experience, there are those who will try exactly that). So, in the end, yes, God may indeed have a plan for your life, but if He is indeed God, then I don't think He needs earthly enforcers and that you should just live your life to the best of your ability, whatever that means to you.
Quote from: Fierce Deity on October 05, 2011, 05:35:47 AM
I don't want to stoke the flames much longer on this specific topic of discussion, but could you give an example? I too felt like a lack of purpose and a lack of a God that controls all things went hand in hand. On a daily basis, we humans find a much deeper meaning and purpose in our life. Maybe not in the beginning, but maybe after one becomes a father, he feels like he needs to protect his family for as long as he can. Or a man who takes pride in his work and hopes to make a difference in the world. The list can go on, but would you not say that a God is there to control that which humans can not, and also provides a purpose that we do not fully understand as of yet? It's fine if an Atheist still believes that life has a purpose, but to be honest, I don't think there would be much left to cling on to without a God. They'd already be a borderline nihilist, in my opinion.
As a lifelong atheist (born to atheist parents), I want to respond to this. I think this is a real gulf between atheists and religious people that both sides often have trouble bridging, and I'd like to try to do it here.
Simply put, for me as an atheist the lack of a God or an afterlife is precisely what
gives purpose to my life. Because I believe my life has no
intrinsic value or purpose, I believe that it is my mission to
create a life with value. Whether or not I'm a good person depends on what I do in my life. Either I live by a moral code, am kind and generous and helpful to others, contribute to the sum total of human knowledge and existence -- or my life was in fact not worth living. In sum, my behavior and actions become the determiner of my purpose in life.
If I believed in God or an afterlife, I would actually
lose a sense of purpose in my life. I would feel no obligation to make a difference in a life that was just a waiting room for the great hereafter. And I would feel no desire to make the world better if there were already an all-powerful God who could do that without my help. There would be no point if my good behavior and actions weren't actually necessary to the improvement of humanity. To me, becoming religious would lead to nihilism, because of my background and my current beliefs.
I have come to understand that for religious people it is exactly the opposite. Their sense of purpose is tied to a belief that there is an omnipotent and caring God who made them special and who will preserve their existences after they die. I have no problems at all with this belief. In fact, I think it is a
similarity between religious people and atheists that too few of us recognize. Both of us believe what we believe because it gives our lives a maximum of purpose and meaning. I think that's a key tenet that crosses the boundary between belief and unbelief.
Quote from: Nonpartisan on October 06, 2011, 11:14:34 AM
Quote from: Fierce Deity on October 05, 2011, 05:35:47 AM
I don't want to stoke the flames much longer on this specific topic of discussion, but could you give an example? I too felt like a lack of purpose and a lack of a God that controls all things went hand in hand. On a daily basis, we humans find a much deeper meaning and purpose in our life. Maybe not in the beginning, but maybe after one becomes a father, he feels like he needs to protect his family for as long as he can. Or a man who takes pride in his work and hopes to make a difference in the world. The list can go on, but would you not say that a God is there to control that which humans can not, and also provides a purpose that we do not fully understand as of yet? It's fine if an Atheist still believes that life has a purpose, but to be honest, I don't think there would be much left to cling on to without a God. They'd already be a borderline nihilist, in my opinion.
As a lifelong atheist (born to atheist parents), I want to respond to this. I think this is a real gulf between atheists and religious people that both sides often have trouble bridging, and I'd like to try to do it here.
Simply put, for me as an atheist the lack of a God or an afterlife is precisely what gives purpose to my life. Because I believe my life has no intrinsic value or purpose, I believe that it is my mission to create a life with value. Whether or not I'm a good person depends on what I do in my life. Either I live by a moral code, am kind and generous and helpful to others, contribute to the sum total of human knowledge and existence -- or my life was in fact not worth living. In sum, my behavior and actions become the determiner of my purpose in life.
If I believed in God or an afterlife, I would actually lose a sense of purpose in my life. I would feel no obligation to make a difference in a life that was just a waiting room for the great hereafter. And I would feel no desire to make the world better if there were already an all-powerful God who could do that without my help. There would be no point if my good behavior and actions weren't actually necessary to the improvement of humanity. To me, becoming religious would lead to nihilism, because of my background and my current beliefs.
I have come to understand that for religious people it is exactly the opposite. Their sense of purpose is tied to a belief that there is an omnipotent and caring God who made them special and who will preserve their existences after they die. I have no problems at all with this belief. In fact, I think it is a similarity between religious people and atheists that too few of us recognize. Both of us believe what we believe because it gives our lives a maximum of purpose and meaning. I think that's a key tenet that crosses the boundary between belief and unbelief.
Great post! I think this is the thread winner, folks.
Quote from: Lambonius on October 06, 2011, 01:04:20 PM
Quote from: Nonpartisan on October 06, 2011, 11:14:34 AM
Quote from: Fierce Deity on October 05, 2011, 05:35:47 AM
I don't want to stoke the flames much longer on this specific topic of discussion, but could you give an example? I too felt like a lack of purpose and a lack of a God that controls all things went hand in hand. On a daily basis, we humans find a much deeper meaning and purpose in our life. Maybe not in the beginning, but maybe after one becomes a father, he feels like he needs to protect his family for as long as he can. Or a man who takes pride in his work and hopes to make a difference in the world. The list can go on, but would you not say that a God is there to control that which humans can not, and also provides a purpose that we do not fully understand as of yet? It's fine if an Atheist still believes that life has a purpose, but to be honest, I don't think there would be much left to cling on to without a God. They'd already be a borderline nihilist, in my opinion.
As a lifelong atheist (born to atheist parents), I want to respond to this. I think this is a real gulf between atheists and religious people that both sides often have trouble bridging, and I'd like to try to do it here.
Simply put, for me as an atheist the lack of a God or an afterlife is precisely what gives purpose to my life. Because I believe my life has no intrinsic value or purpose, I believe that it is my mission to create a life with value. Whether or not I'm a good person depends on what I do in my life. Either I live by a moral code, am kind and generous and helpful to others, contribute to the sum total of human knowledge and existence -- or my life was in fact not worth living. In sum, my behavior and actions become the determiner of my purpose in life.
If I believed in God or an afterlife, I would actually lose a sense of purpose in my life. I would feel no obligation to make a difference in a life that was just a waiting room for the great hereafter. And I would feel no desire to make the world better if there were already an all-powerful God who could do that without my help. There would be no point if my good behavior and actions weren't actually necessary to the improvement of humanity. To me, becoming religious would lead to nihilism, because of my background and my current beliefs.
I have come to understand that for religious people it is exactly the opposite. Their sense of purpose is tied to a belief that there is an omnipotent and caring God who made them special and who will preserve their existences after they die. I have no problems at all with this belief. In fact, I think it is a similarity between religious people and atheists that too few of us recognize. Both of us believe what we believe because it gives our lives a maximum of purpose and meaning. I think that's a key tenet that crosses the boundary between belief and unbelief.
Great post! I think this is the thread winner, folks.
Seriously, I want to get up an applaud that post.
Bt
Agreed! Very well said, Nonpartisan. :bow:
(hmm. I thought we did have an applaud smiley. Note to self!)
*applauds* Great post!
Thanks, guys! Much appreciated.
It has always bothered me when zealots paint atheists as being purposeless and immoral specifically for that reason. One can find a purpose in life whether one believes that purpose was created by God or not.
That said, I think that the idea of a purpose is secondary to the main question that religion answers, which is, "Why?" And I think that's the main question that atheism has trouble answering.
One can find a purpose, like Nonpartisan said, in contributing to the advancement of humanity. But that doesn't answer the question as to why? Why do that? Why advance humanity as opposed to, say, living a life of hedonism? Or advancing your own commune as opposed to humanity as a whole? One could argue that a completely selfish life simply causes society to turn against the individual, but that doesn't answer the question as to why one should live a certain way. It's just a cause and effect. Creating a purpose for life doesn't answer any question as to why we're here. To me there's no concrete answer as to "why" when it comes to atheism. Someone is drowning in a lake so I saved their life. Why? Because that person need not die if I can help them. Why? Because an individual life is important. Why? Because we are unique individuals. Well that's a statement of fact, not an explanation. Because that person deserves to live out their life, then. Why? Because they do. Why? Because why should a person's life end needlessly? Why shouldn't it? Why should it? Why are you asking me? I'm just a question. If you don't have an answer, what do you have?
Now one could certainly argue that religion is just mankind's attempt to answer that question without going into an infinite loop of "why." But the idea that there is a god or a force bigger than us that created the world and has a purpose allows an answer as to "why." People being people can pervert that (God wanted this to happen, or God made that disaster happen) but that's just a skewing of the answer, not a disproof of the answer itself. Likewise, that answer does lead to problems like free will and why bad things happen to good people and good happens to the bad. But those issues also exist in a world without god (free will being an illusion since everything is stimulus/response or the fact that good things happen to bad people with no end game at all.) Religion gives a purpose because it answers the question of why. Morals exist because goodness is an attribute of god. Without a permanent answer, morality is just a creation of society. Something that doesn't have a definite purpose. Is morality what's right for the most amount of people? Well why do they matter? Why not what just works best for me? Is morality something that's created by the weak to put themselves in authority over the strong? Well, doesn't that make them stronger than you, Nietzsche? And it's still not an actual morality. It's just a construct.
Personally I would find the world of amorality (even if you have a moral code, it would be arbitrary or at best what is of use at that place in that time) terrible to live in. Mainly because of the confusion and the fact that there is no final answer to anything. There is no answer to "why." Religion answers it. And while religion may have its own issues, I'd rather face them with a final answer to life than face a life that has no answers for me at all.
Quote from: Nonpartisan on October 06, 2011, 11:14:34 AM
To me, becoming religious would lead to nihilism, because of my background and my current beliefs.
That could be argued, but I think the definition of nihilism is not a negative one. The existence of an overall purpose to life is exactly what religion tries to advertise. They go to people who are down in the dumps and say "You don't need to be miserable, cause you have Jesus!" Whether the purpose is actually existent is clearly not a debatable issue. Being an atheist myself, I don't feel like I need that "overall purpose", because I plan on making my life the way I want it to be. I deserve no less, in my opinion. From the discussion that I am having with Delling, purpose is something that is earned through one's actions, not one that is thrust upon you by an overseer. In short, I'm agreeing with you, but I'm using nihilism as a literal term, and not so much as the practical term that it has turned into. I wouldn't want to have it misconstrued with what I'm saying. When I say nihilism, I don't mean "there is no purpose", but rather "there is no rulebook to life, and you are free to do what you want". Religion provides a rulebook, atheism suggests you should write your own rulebook. That in itself, is nihilism.
Fierce Deity, understood.
Damar, that's a great question. My answer is that for me morality is a social construct, but it's also a choice that I make. Ultimately, the "final answer" is "because it's my choice, and it's what I want to do." Now, the reason I want to be moral is that I've been conditioned to by society -- but societies are also culturally self-perpetuating, so it's a pretty safe bet that my children and my children's children will be conditioned to be moral as well.
Again from my perspective as an atheist, the choice to be moral is actually more meaningful because it is a choice. It's something that I come to in the fullness of reason and understanding, and that I embrace because it's an identity I want for myself. That's more affirming to me than being moral because there is an absolute moral right and wrong in the world, and I'm just doing what is obvious and externally determined. Again, I recognize that for religious people it is precisely the opposite. Both I and a religious person believe what we believe because it is the most meaningful for each of us.
I now what to bring up a new discussion: the definition of morality. I always thought it was doing what was right and being the best person you can possibly be. I've come to my own conclusion that 'morality' is a relative term. I would never hurt anybody or cause them any emotional suffering. I'm very reserved when it comes to any sort of conflict. I don't even support any violence, like war, hunting, or even euthanasia of unwanted pets, etc. I base my perspective of the world on what I would do personally. Like I had brought up earlier, I have my own rulebook to life. So on the whole, I'd say I'm a pretty moral person, but I also know that other people have justified reasons for acting on impulses that I personally would deem inappropriate. But for them, it's okay. How would one distinguish what is right and wrong, knowing full well, that there is no right or wrong? Is it purely imposed by one's personal level of conduct and psychosocial behavior? The silver lining, however is the laws that a government sets on society. Within that society, the laws are not optional, and the repercussions are intact for all cases.
In terms of morality, I don't see a whole lot of difference. The fact that I don't believe that there is an absolute right and wrong doesn't change the way I choose to behave or the standards I choose to set for myself. Those standards are to some degree socially constructed, but there is an element of choice as well.
What it comes down to is that I have a worldview -- I have a way of looking at the world that deems some choices right and some wrong. I evaluate my choices in light of that worldview. I evaluate other people's choices in three ways:
1) in light of the worldview that I choose for myself (i.e., I don't drink, so I find other people's drinking immoral);
2) in light of the worldview the other person chooses for herself (she views drinking as an important part of social interaction, so I appreciate that her actions are consistent with her beliefs);
3) in light of government laws, which represent the consensus of the majority of individual worldviews in a society (it's legal to drink if you're over 21).
As much as possible, I try to evaluate people according to 2), because that helps me understand and appreciate them and their choices. However, there are times when 1) has to come first (I can't be your friend if you're rude and offensive toward women, even if it's legal and makes sense in your worldview) and times when 3) has to come first (no matter how much you or I might think murder is justified in a certain case, the laws prohibit it and the laws are more important).
However you choose to evaluate them, I think the key principle to keep in mind is that all three frames of reference are different. I think that people too often assume that they are the same: if you do something I think is wrong, you're being intentionally perverse. That sort of thinking leads people to dehumanize one another, which is bad in my view.
Very true. Perspective is everything, but it still comes down to whether a right and wrong can still be constructed from neither the first or second perspective. Not to sound condescending, but there was a time when women couldn't vote, and that was socially acceptable. Even though I'm a man, I think it's wrong to exclude women from voting. It's a national convention for choosing representatives for office, so why should a portion of the citizens be turned away from the voting polls? Perspectives can't always be a good indication though, because perspectives change just as easily as the seasons do. For instance, I wasn't always an atheist, nor was I as accepting of another person's opinion. In fact, I was my own worst enemy. I like that I've matured and grown a sense of mind that helps me understand more about the world, rather than reject facts out of ignorance and spite.
There is no absolute right or wrong, but there is also no consistency with what can be considered moral. It's relative to the person, the people, or the entire generation, but above all else, there is no fine line that separates what is moral or immoral. It's just an amoral opinion for the time being. Nothing wrong with that, I'm just trying to get an idea of how people view morality.
Nonpartisan's view is logical. To take different views and come to a rational conclusion of whether something is acceptable or not.
I just have to say that guys, this discussion is great, and I'm so glad to see it's continued for 3 pages now and is still a very civil, intelligent and polite discussion. :) We CAN all get along!
I recommend taking a sociology class, as it explains exactly why religion came about.
Somehow I doubt that all religions ever can be explained by a soc 101 class. There's a lot more complexity there than just a societal desire to explain the unknown or tie together the community. Then again, I've never had much use for sociology. The study of the individual is where it's at. That informs the group dynamic. Not that I want to start a flame war. Psychology vs. sociology is potentially an even bigger rivalry than religion vs atheism!
It ultimately might just come down to personality and how we view the world, but where Nonpartisan sees freedom, I would feel nothing but futility. One can say that they're creating a morality in their life, or a purpose, but if there is no ultimate answer, then those are just words. I know I personally require an ultimate answer, or at least an attempt to solve it, rather than saying "This is what works for now." And to be fair, that exact same thing bothers me when religious people try to explain away legitimate concerns or tough questions about their beliefs by simply saying that they have faith. Faith is necessary but it is not a "believe whatever you want without getting called on it" card.
To put it another way, using Fierce Deity's example of women voting, the law stated for a long while that women couldn't vote. Ultimately that was changed. But was it wrong not to allow women to vote? Well if there is no concrete morality outside of what is constructed, then no, it wasn't. Any injustice in life is no longer morally wrong. It might disgust us on a primal level but we can't say, "that was wrong." All morality is constructed based on what is of use or what a person's belief is. Unless you want to argue that there is an underlying morality, that some things are just wrong, regardless of societal construction and personal belief (like child molestation, or murder, or talking during a movie.) But then there still needs to be an answer as to why. Why are these morals in existence? Who says they must be followed? Where did they come from? And when you're dealing with a moral code that does rule humanity that is seemingly higher than us, isn't that getting close to a god figure, whatever you say your belief is?
Also, as to Fierce Deity's question of how morality is defined, from a religious aspect I think there's more than one definition, depending on your belief. One could argue that what is pleasing to God is morally right. Personally, I would define morality, based on my own beliefs, to be the attributes of God. If you accept that God is benevolent and good (meaning entirely good and without evil) then living according to the attributes of God is by definition moral. Good isn't something you do. It is something that simply exists by extension because everything is created by God and therefore reflects to an extent what God is. Evil, then, would be the absence of good. It is the things that fall short of the attributes of God, or that are direct perversions of those attributes and creations.
Quote from: Damar on October 09, 2011, 04:32:22 PM
Also, as to Fierce Deity's question of how morality is defined, from a religious aspect I think there's more than one definition, depending on your belief. One could argue that what is pleasing to God is morally right. Personally, I would define morality, based on my own beliefs, to be the attributes of God. If you accept that God is benevolent and good (meaning entirely good and without evil) then living according to the attributes of God is by definition moral. Good isn't something you do. It is something that simply exists by extension because everything is created by God and therefore reflects to an extent what God is. Evil, then, would be the absence of good. It is the things that fall short of the attributes of God, or that are direct perversions of those attributes and creations.
That is a great definition of what morality would be, and although this is not supposed to be a debate, I would like to point out an inconsistency. If morality would be the attributes of God, and God created the world, then why are there immoral events and attributes in this world? The immoral perversions must have at least existed in the mind of God.
Also, I don't want to rock the boat, but it's agreed among many religions that killing is a sin, yet there are events where God has killed people. The world flooding, burning of Sodom and Gomorrah, sacrifices, etc. I think defining morality as something that is attached to a divine figure would be an adamant deduction if it weren't for the writings that impose the divine being's will. This is only assuming that the writings are true, but as many have tried to point out, the Bible was written by man, not God. The actions of the past could easily be natural disasters, and the blame was wrongfully directed towards God in conclusion. The world may never know what really happened in those times. Still, defining morality as the 'act of being God' is an interesting suggestion.
Quote from: Fierce Deity on October 09, 2011, 04:56:55 PM
That is a great definition of what morality would be, and although this is not supposed to be a debate, I would like to point out an inconsistency. If morality would be the attributes of God, and God created the world, then why are there immoral events and attributes in this world? The immoral perversions must have at least existed in the mind of God.
Ultimately that question depends on what religion is doing the answering. In the case of a religion that believes in a god who is entirely good, the evil comes from the fact that people have free will. A wholly good god would be incapable of creating sin, however could create a being that was good but capable of choosing whether to behave in one way or another. Therefore the evil that is in the world is the result of people choosing to act in discordance with what is good for immediate gain. Other things that are in the world, I would define as good or evil. For example let's say a child gets struck by lightning and dies. To me that's sad but not evil. It's unfortunate but we live in a world with lightening. The lightening is not evil. The child wasn't morally wrong to be outside. It simply happened. Actually, this is also my view on hell. And yeah, I know that's not really part of what's being discussed but it's only a matter of time before it gets brought up (particularly when religion and ultimate morality are being discussed.) Briefly I wouldn't consider hell to be the punishment that it has been expressed as. It's simply an inevitability. To me, the concept behind Christianity is that people are either accepting God or not, which is an outgrowth of free will. Those that accept God live with God in heaven. Those that do not live without God, which is what is called hell. I don't see it as a fiery tormenting punishment. It is simply an afterlife without God. Scriptures of fire and gnashing teeth are simply metaphorical ways of expressing the existential separation from God. So again, like morality, I would see the concept of hell as just being an outgrowth of what God is. God granted free will, so if a person uses that free will to choose not to be around God anymore, then that's their choice. It's just mankind's need to see other people be wrong and punished that led to hell being turned into what it is seen as now.
Other issues with god (in the Judeo-Christian belief) doing or sanctioning things that seem evil would depend on a few different things. First would be whether it was even sanctioned by God. An example would be the Crusades. The Crusades seem appalling and it's hard to believe that a loving God would have wanted such violence to take place. The simple answer would be that it's not sanctioned by God. End of story. That was mankind acting on their own prejudices and desires then attributing it to God as a means of justifying the behavior. Other arguments would be that it's God's work in a broken system. There's violence because mankind chose to act in discordance with God, therefore now there's violence and so on. A lot of the bloodiest parts in the Old Testament, for example, seem to be a means to one end which is keeping God's chosen people alive in a world that was far bloodier than it is today. And one could argue that God could make things be less bloody, thereby making the system less broken and not necessitating the occasional smiting. But then that would take away free will.
Anyway, that would be my quick yet meandering answer to those questions without trying to escalate the discussion to a debate. Because, after all, discussions are more fun than debates.
Morality has nothing to do with personal religious belief. Morality is a product of social conditioning.
Quote from: Lambonius on October 09, 2011, 05:42:45 PM
Morality has nothing to do with personal religious belief. Morality is a product of social conditioning.
Would you like to elaborate?
Quote from: Fierce Deity on October 09, 2011, 05:52:58 PM
Quote from: Lambonius on October 09, 2011, 05:42:45 PM
Morality has nothing to do with personal religious belief. Morality is a product of social conditioning.
Would you like to elaborate?
We live in a society that espouses a certain set of civic & moral values that determines our laws and practices. Man, by nature, seeks whatever actions or situations will most benefit him. Regardless of personal religious beliefs, we all know that if we break certain laws, our lives as we know it will end. In most Western countries, this civic code is defined in roughly Christian terms, so even atheists find themselves following a more or less Christian moral code. In other parts of the world, where other societies are set up around other sets of values, people's individual moralities may differ.
But there has to be more than just the social conditioning. Take slavery for example. Society thought it was not only acceptable, but actually moral for a long while. Both religion and science at the time tried to justify why it was alright (the mark of Cain or evolutionary throwback). But obviously slavery wasn't morally right. If we go to morality being solely a social construct though, then there's no way you can point to a higher moral law that overrides society's law.
There are reasons why (for example) the US Constitution is phrased "we hold these truths to be self-evident".
Quote from: KatieHal on October 09, 2011, 08:27:54 PM
There are reasons why (for example) the US Constitution is phrased "we hold these truths to be self-evident".
Yeah, but on the other hand, the "we" refers to "we, the founding members of this particular society, who mostly come from a Christian upbringing." It's really a chicken & egg issue, I think.
It is, but it's not like ours was the first and only government to consider murder a reprehensible crime, Christian influence or no.
Quote from: KatieHal on October 09, 2011, 09:46:31 PM
It is, but it's not like ours was the first and only government to consider murder a reprehensible crime, Christian influence or no.
There's no doubt that that is the case, but there are also certain groups of people that uphold the killing of outsiders or infidels. I think for the most part, people can construe murder as a crime or a sin, but there are cases where you can make murder almost sound like a good thing. Like, capital punishment. It's all about wordplay.
Agreed. Why is killing bad? Because it disrupts the community. What if you're killing an outsider, or someone who doesn't fit within the community, or someone who is a human sacrifice? What if your goal is to disrupt the community?
Society only creates laws to perpetuate itself. Culture exists only to secure its own position against other cultures, to convert similar cultures into itself, and to destroy cultures it cannot convert.
I don't totally buy that, though. Even when religion is taken out of the picture, people will still tend to see a higher morality that society may be built around, but was still in existence prior to society. Whether it's a law or nature or as the US Constitution put it, certain unalienable rights (though with the forefathers' unwritten caveat of "as long as you're actually a man. And don't have brown skin. And as long as unalienable is actually a word. It is, right?)
Let's take the murder example. I think if you asked people why murder is wrong, you wouldn't have people saying that it's because it disrupts the community. After all, people feel outraged at murders that occur in another community. If laws and morality only existed to have societies perpetuate themselves, then that sort of thing shouldn't bother people. People should just shrug off murders, ethnic cleansings, genocides, and such by saying, "well that's fewer of them and more room for us." But people don't do that (outside of people filled with hate and anger or ignorance.) Rather, I believe that people identify murder as wrong because we see people's lives as having an intrinsic worth. People have a right to live, not just to contribute (if I went and killed a loner who lived in his parents basement and who never worked a day in his life, it would still be considered morally wrong) but to live, period. Taking that from someone, and by extension taking the power of independent choice from another person, is an example of a higher morality that society seems to have built itself around and will enforce, rather than it being solely a construct of society.
And true, society can justify away some of that higher morality based on its own laws, but that doesn't erase the higher morality. In fact, it reinforces the higher morality in a way. Take Fierce Deity's example of society endorsing capital punishment. This isn't a society justifying murder. Rather, the conceit of capital punishment is that this individual has forfeited their natural right to life by robbing another person of that same right. By taking power over another person, they no longer have the right to have power over their own life. Call it a corrupt system, call it revenge based, call it whatever you want because that's not the point. The point is that society's law, whether you agree with it or not, is trying to correct the injustice that was done in accordance with this higher morality that people see in life. Murder is wrong and if you take someone else's right to life, then your right will be taken as well, because that natural law is bigger than all of us and bigger than society.
Quote from: Damar on October 11, 2011, 07:23:17 AM
And true, society can justify away some of that higher morality based on its own laws, but that doesn't erase the higher morality. In fact, it reinforces the higher morality in a way. Take Fierce Deity's example of society endorsing capital punishment. This isn't a society justifying murder. Rather, the conceit of capital punishment is that this individual has forfeited their natural right to life by robbing another person of that same right. By taking power over another person, they no longer have the right to have power over their own life. Call it a corrupt system, call it revenge based, call it whatever you want because that's not the point. The point is that society's law, whether you agree with it or not, is trying to correct the injustice that was done in accordance with this higher morality that people see in life. Murder is wrong and if you take someone else's right to life, then your right will be taken as well, because that natural law is bigger than all of us and bigger than society.
By that example, I should be able to take the life of the executioner who killed the murderer. And so shall my life be taken by the next guy, and then the next guy's next guy, and so on so forth. "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind" doesn't even begin to explain what is wrong with the system. What about war, then? Is killing okay in war because it's justified? As long as I can trivialize the importance of an outsider's life, I can make him a necessary casualty. I won't begin a war debate, but where is the line of killing being an 'okay' thing to deal with. If capital punishment is one extreme and murder is the other, where would we draw the line? Assisted suicide? Euthanasia?
Right, and all those issues deserve their own topics on why they would be justifiable or not. In the case of the executioner, he's given that power because the murderer has given up the right to his own life. Therefore it is seen as justified and the executioner is not worthy of death. The murderer broke the higher moral law and the executioner is carrying that to its natural conclusion. Whether capital punishment is argued to be morally right or wrong, it is justified as a means of enforcing that higher morality.
And that was my point, as opposed to attempting to justify war or execution. Rather, the argument was made that all law is a societal construct, a means of perpetuating the community at the expense of outsiders. I think that while there may be some societal laws that are constructs (pay your taxes and so on) there is a higher morality that these laws are built around that preexisted any community. That's the point I was making. People don't see murder as wrong because it hurts society. They see it as wrong because it robs a person of their natural right of life. That points to a higher morality, not to a social construct. Call it a law of nature, a law of god, call it whatever, the point is that it goes beyond a cultural, man-made concept and into something that simply is. Morality can't just be boiled down to "society creates it to perpetuate itself" for that reason, in my opinion. It just doesn't seem to follow the view that people actually have on morality.
Quote from: Damar on October 11, 2011, 08:29:05 AM
And that was my point, as opposed to attempting to justify war or execution. Rather, the argument was made that all law is a societal construct, a means of perpetuating the community at the expense of outsiders. I think that while there may be some societal laws that are constructs (pay your taxes and so on) there is a higher morality that these laws are built around that preexisted any community. That's the point I was making. People don't see murder as wrong because it hurts society. They see it as wrong because it robs a person of their natural right of life. That points to a higher morality, not to a social construct. Call it a law of nature, a law of god, call it whatever, the point is that it goes beyond a cultural, man-made concept and into something that simply is. Morality can't just be boiled down to "society creates it to perpetuate itself" for that reason, in my opinion. It just doesn't seem to follow the view that people actually have on morality.
Right, but what I'm trying to explain as that there shouldn't be any asterisks or exceptions to the rule. Killing is killing is killing. An executioner having the right to kill someone else because that person killed somebody else is literally the form of an exception to murder. It's not like the murderer came up to the executioner and said "I forfeit my right to live, please kill me." The murderer is being killed against his will by the executioner. That is textbook definition: murder.
I'm not trying to say that what the murderer did was right, but that what the executioner is doing is no better than what the murderer did. It's just more killing. This is a simplistic observation. To try and explain that the murderer is the scum of the earth and that he deserves his just desserts is an accurate point, but to say that the executioner is just doing his job is ignoring the fact that he too is a killer and is committing an immoral act. However, when it comes to capital punishment, the executioner is being excused from murder. So if there is an exception, wouldn't that mean that the 'no-killing' law was man-made since it can be excused by man?
What you're describing is punishment being a social construct. I would agree with that. The underlying morality, though, would not be. Like you said, murder is murder is murder. Now if that concept of morality was purely a social construct, then there would be exceptions all over the place. True, people will justify murder and wars and so on, but the key word there is "justify." They have to search for an exception because the underlying morality is that murder is wrong.
Ultimately the point I'm arguing against is that morality is a purely social construct. Laws are society's way of perpetuating itself at the expense of others. I must grow and expand and therefore you must whither and die, or at the very least stay out of my way so that I may live. But is that actually what we see? I would argue it's not. Using murder as an example, I don't live in your society. Would you, then, feel comfortable finding me, killing me, and taking my stuff? I'm an outsider, I have resources you could use, and if morality is purely a means of perpetuating one community over another, then you should have no problem with that. But we don't see that in society. Even the most egregious examples of racism and intolerance have some kind of justification behind them (they're not even people, they were trying to kill us first, we're the chosen ones) which shows that people look for an excuse to get away with doing what they want. You only look for excuses when you need to get around something. If morality is simply a social construct, there's nothing to get around. You get yours by any means necessary, end of story. We'd live in a world of sociopaths (at least when dealing with people outside your community.) Since that's something we don't see as a general rule, it follows that there is a higher morality that society has built itself around and branched its laws from (some of which may be social constructs, but the core would not be).
Therefore not all morality is simply created by society, is my ultimate point, using murder as an example.
Killing is not killing in all instances. The murderer killed somebody for his own personal gain. It is not the executioner who kills him, or at least, not symbolically. It is society which has decided to kill the murderer (the executioner is merely the instrument of society) and this carries more weight than the rights of the murderer because society assumes a moral superiority over him (rightly or wrongly).
The reason for this is that, as Damar points out, society tries to perpetuate itself. People band together in a society because it gives them certain benefits: it means they have a police force and a reliable way of getting food and resources. In exchange, they obey society's laws, giving up the total freedom which they would experience if they were totally outside society. The murderer, by killing somebody, has disobeyed a societal law which exists in the first place because killing people is disruptive to society; it undermines the benefits which society gives. The murderer is executed partly to appease people, but mostly because it is the most effective way of removing him from society for good and stabilising the situation.
And yes, if I met somebody in the wilderness I wouldn't want to kill them. But this is because the two of us might form a very small society. Yes this person might have resources I can use, but by banding together with them (or at least not being overly hostile) we could provide each other with shared resources (which might improve both our lots), protection (we could sleep in shifts, one of us keeping watch) and companionship. And if I tried to kill them and failed, that would be disastrous. But if such a friendship was impossible - if they were totally hostile and exploited me for my resources - then killing would be an excellent option. It would remove a hostile and unco-operative influence and would strengthen my own position.
I do believe that human society would do well to found itself on a principle of "be nice to others and they'll be nice back", but it doesn't follow that killing is taboo. Killing is simply another human act. Yes it has permanent consequences and should never be taken lightly, but the idea that it must never happen is neither sensible nor borne out by almost any period in human history.
Quote from: darthkiwi on October 13, 2011, 04:24:44 AM
Killing is not killmurdering in all instances.
:P I fixed it.
I have killed millions... of cancer and rat cells. :P That one week when I didn't kill my cells and left and then came back... after that, I may have killed billions (depending on when I last split them: 128-512 * N, N being the population I split them down to... N could easily have been 100's of thousands). :P These things happen. :P
Quote from: darthkiwi on October 13, 2011, 04:24:44 AM
I do believe that human society would do well to found itself on a principle of "be nice to others and they'll be nice back", but it doesn't follow that killing is taboo. Killing is simply another human act. Yes it has permanent consequences and should never be taken lightly, but the idea that it must never happen is neither sensible nor borne out by almost any period in human history.
:thumbsup:
Quote from: Damar on October 12, 2011, 03:31:23 PM
What you're describing is punishment being a social construct. I would agree with that. The underlying morality, though, would not be.
...
Therefore not all morality is simply created by society, is my ultimate point, using murder as an example.
I'm not sure I agree with you. In part because nebulously defined, immaterial higher standards make a great license for those willing to abuse the interpretation of those "standards". Come back when you have a nice list, neatly delineated on some stone tablets. :P
What I would be willing to agree to is that there are things which have absolute meaning and that you can build systems of value and worth around them. I don't see that the things that go along with most moralities such as shame economics, power dynamics, etc., necessarily follow from that. Of course, that would be because the meanings and reactions to them upon which I've built my morality don't reflect meanings and reactions upon which those moralities are built (I am a theist, for instance. So, I expect that there is a God and that His existence has meaning, that is it somehow impacts and shapes the world. My morality will be intrinsically different from the morality of an atheist. We may agree that beauty is meaningful and have a positive response to it--if so we are both aesthetes. He may feel that pleasure is meaningful, more meaningful than I consider it, perhaps to the extent of elevating the acquisition of pleasure to a goal--then he would be a hedonist while I would not be (I might not be an ascetic, meaning I eschew pleasures as somehow amoral, though nothing in my description thus far has precluded that)).
Quote from: Damar on October 12, 2011, 03:31:23 PM
You only look for excuses when you need to get around something. If morality is simply a social construct, there's nothing to get around. You get yours by any means necessary, end of story.
You still have to get around society. You ≠ Society. If (and I'm not saying it is) morality is a social construct, then morality is a mandate of the masses. You still have to subvert the masses' ire if you want to do something amoral.
People do this on a regular basis: by having lots of money, economic or political power, or simply disagreeing with the moral majority consistently and vociferously. In the end though, I imagine most people are just busily constructing their own individual moralities.
Actually, morality/moralism and language have a lot in common in that you can have moralistic idiolects and we can compare those to moralistic dialects and see whether or not they are "mutually intelligible" (reach some minimum level of consensus).
Quote from: Damar on October 12, 2011, 03:31:23 PM
We'd live in a world of sociopaths (at least when dealing with people outside your community.) Since that's something we don't see as a general rule, it follows that there is a higher morality that society has built itself around and branched its laws from (some of which may be social constructs, but the core would not be).
I don't regularly encounter people who call a cat a fish. Ergo, there is a higher standard that dictates a cat is not a fish.
There isn't a higher, abstract thing that makes a cat not a fish. There's just centuries' worth of social consensus that one thing is a cat and the other is a fish and that the two are not the same.
The other factor is that in the modern world, the internet has more or less provided us with a global community and a history of expansion and colonization has more or less used up the global landmass... there isn't a frontier for us to go encounter unknown or unheard of people in unless they are "unheard of" in the sense of simple ignorance of their existence. We don't deal with people we don't know as sociopaths because we feel we know everyone and we know there are global and local legal, social, moral authorities (whether or not we agree with each of those levels of the local authority individually, distributively, or completely and implicitly is a hazier issue), and in some cases, we may even find that the local authority is more inclined to protect the locals than the outsiders so it wouldn't exactly do us much good to act up.
Intriguingly, back in the days when we used to encounter aboriginal tribes, we did sometimes encounter tribes that dealt with outsiders on the basis that "you are an outsider; ergo you do not count and we can do as we please with you... yum" (yum added for comedic effect).
[I set out to make a short simple tongue-firmly-wedged-in-cheek response... and this happens :no: XD]
Quote from: Delling on October 13, 2011, 06:57:26 AM
Quote from: Damar on October 12, 2011, 03:31:23 PM
We'd live in a world of sociopaths (at least when dealing with people outside your community.) Since that's something we don't see as a general rule, it follows that there is a higher morality that society has built itself around and branched its laws from (some of which may be social constructs, but the core would not be).
I don't regularly encounter people who call a cat a fish. Ergo, there is a higher standard that dictates a cat is not a fish.
There isn't a higher, abstract thing that makes a cat not a fish. There's just centuries' worth of social consensus that one thing is a cat and the other is a fish and that the two are not the same.
I would argue there is a higher thing that makes a cat not a fish, namely it's very being. A fish is a thing that swims and is delicious. A cat is a thing that purrs, coughs up hairballs, and is probably delicious but not in a culturally appropriate way. You can call them whatever you want, but whether you call the thing that swims a fish, cat, or human, it's still that thing that swims. Consensus comes about because of this thing's existence and underlying identity. It's identity doesn't come about because society has reached a consensus.
And that's the issue I have with society defining morality in totality. It makes morality arbitrary depending on the culture and the consensus and we just plain don't see that. I would argue that this is evidence of a higher morality, something that in our core of being, regardless of our society, we recognize certain things as morally correct and incorrect. At its core, since I'm all out of stone tablets to decree absolute law, it seems that we are wired to see each person as an individual who deserves their own life, apart from the control of others. Therefore things like murder, rape, theft, slavery, and so on transcend societal laws and are part of a greater morality. You just straight up don't do those things. Societies have tried to justify them in the past, but like I said, the fact that you (you meaning "you all" in the societal sense, report me to the English language thread if you must) justify means that there is something you're justifying against. Again, evidence of a higher morality, of inalienable human rights.
Quote from: darthkiwi on October 13, 2011, 04:24:44 AM
And yes, if I met somebody in the wilderness I wouldn't want to kill them. But this is because the two of us might form a very small society. Yes this person might have resources I can use, but by banding together with them (or at least not being overly hostile) we could provide each other with shared resources (which might improve both our lots), protection (we could sleep in shifts, one of us keeping watch) and companionship. And if I tried to kill them and failed, that would be disastrous. But if such a friendship was impossible - if they were totally hostile and exploited me for my resources - then killing would be an excellent option. It would remove a hostile and unco-operative influence and would strengthen my own position.
And if you have nothing to do with that other person, nothing to tie you down to them, then what? Would it be morally appropriate to raid that person's community and take their stuff? They don't need to watch your back, you have your own community for that. If morality is simply created by society alone and what perpetuates the society, then there should be nothing morally wrong about raiding some city, killing and pillaging, and bringing the resources back to your community. In fact, scratch it not being morally wrong, societal morality would demand you do such things, for the good of the community. Like I said in my last post, though, we don't see that. We don't live in a world of sociopaths. That points to an underlying morality. Even this person you don't know and who has things you need deserves to live his life and keep what belongs to him. He has rights and you abide by them.
I've been following this thread, but I hadn't had the time to comment until now.
If you think about it, atheism is a kind of faith, too - faith in the nonexistence of God. The existence of God can no more be disproved than it can be proved (regardless of what the philosophers might say). In my worldview, the idea of God not existing doesn't make sense. With my scientific background, I can relate a bit more easily to agnostics, who believe that we can't know whether God exists or not. (Greek: ἀ- a-, without + γνῶσις gnōsis, knowledge)
As a Christian, I believe that there is an absolute morality, defined by God, and communicated in the Bible. (Not a popular belief, I know.) Of course, interpreting that morality can be very difficult. People often point to the example of the command not to kill as an inconsistency, but I believe that there are significant differences among murder, accidental killing, war, and capital punishment.
Anyway... that's my $0.02.
QuoteAt its core, since I'm all out of stone tablets to decree absolute law, it seems that we are wired to see each person as an individual who deserves their own life, apart from the control of others. Therefore things like murder, rape, theft, slavery, and so on transcend societal laws and are part of a greater morality.
???
Almost all human societies have practiced slavery. Almost all societies have feudal hierarchies, allowing people to dominate one another. Human sacrifice was common to most of central and south America, and various forms of execution (whether the removal of a scapegoat or the execution of heretics or political revolutionaries) was THE NORM in Europe until capital punishment was abolished less than 100 years ago, which is an overwhelmingly long stretch of time for you to say that we have a universal morality which says killing is wrong. Women were exploited and seen as objects (or at least second-class citizens) in the majority of societies until about 1918. The persecution of blacks only stopped (sort of) 50 years ago. There are still people out there committing genocide in Africa, causing mass starvation, and perpetuating slavery either in the form of debt slavery (where children must work for the rest of their lives for no pay to pay off the debts of their parents) or in the form of human trafficking (where immigrants, often to the UK, are lured here under false promises and then imprisoned in somebody's house and made to work for no pay).
Humans do sometimes show compassion, but to argue that that is the norm as the result of some in-built feeling of justice is to ignore the vast majority of human history, wherein we enslaved, murdered, captured, conquered and raped everything we could (and still are doing in some areas).
And yes, there are a few ennobling philosophers who believed that humanity was essentially noble and put forward a more libertarian view of humanity. Those people who believed that blacks were equal to whites in the 19th century, for example. But to say that that was the norm, or that that message somehow took root in people's minds because it was felt to be correct? No! That's simply untrue! Blacks were still treated as subhuman well into the second half of the 20th century.
We're now in a cultural position to look back on all that and say "Ah, yes, those were bad times but now we're enlightened! Now we can see that humanity is essentially good." Which is nonsense. You can't use the last 50 years of relative goodwill to ignore about 10,000 years of wanton domination. Yes, I agree that the system of morals we have right now is actually pretty good, in that it allows people to get along and not lessen others' happiness too much. But that does not mean there's anything more inherently "true" in this morality than any other.
Quote from: darthkiwi on October 14, 2011, 03:23:48 AM
Almost all human societies have practiced slavery. Almost all societies have feudal hierarchies, allowing people to dominate one another. Human sacrifice was common to most of central and south America, and various forms of execution (whether the removal of a scapegoat or the execution of heretics or political revolutionaries) was THE NORM in Europe until capital punishment was abolished less than 100 years ago, which is an overwhelmingly long stretch of time for you to say that we have a universal morality which says killing is wrong. Women were exploited and seen as objects (or at least second-class citizens) in the majority of societies until about 1918. The persecution of blacks only stopped (sort of) 50 years ago. There are still people out there committing genocide in Africa, causing mass starvation, and perpetuating slavery either in the form of debt slavery (where children must work for the rest of their lives for no pay to pay off the debts of their parents) or in the form of human trafficking (where immigrants, often to the UK, are lured here under false promises and then imprisoned in somebody's house and made to work for no pay).
Humans do sometimes show compassion, but to argue that that is the norm as the result of some in-built feeling of justice is to ignore the vast majority of human history, wherein we enslaved, murdered, captured, conquered and raped everything we could (and still are doing in some areas).
And yes, there are a few ennobling philosophers who believed that humanity was essentially noble and put forward a more libertarian view of humanity. Those people who believed that blacks were equal to whites in the 19th century, for example. But to say that that was the norm, or that that message somehow took root in people's minds because it was felt to be correct? No! That's simply untrue! Blacks were still treated as subhuman well into the second half of the 20th century.
We're now in a cultural position to look back on all that and say "Ah, yes, those were bad times but now we're enlightened! Now we can see that humanity is essentially good." Which is nonsense. You can't use the last 50 years of relative goodwill to ignore about 10,000 years of wanton domination. Yes, I agree that the system of morals we have right now is actually pretty good, in that it allows people to get along and not lessen others' happiness too much. But that does not mean there's anything more inherently "true" in this morality than any other.
I think you're mistaking my saying that there is a universal morality for me saying that people are basically good, which I'm definitely not. Your examples are all valid, but that all gets back to justification people make that I was talking about earlier. Yes, all those things happened, but there was a societal justification for all of it. The concept of human slavery, for example, was considered horrific. People justified having African slaves, because in their mind, they weren't people. Therefore it wasn't slavery. It was owning property. It was no different than owning cattle. Women have been exploited and treated like second-class citizens. And this was justified as actually believing that they are second-class citizens, that women are like children and just can't handle important things, lest their fragile little minds implode with thoughts that don't center around cooking and cleaning. Human sacrifices have existed but they were either justified by using outsiders who were seen as unimportant and less than, or the sacrifice utilized insiders and was seen as an honor. In each of these cases, a moral wrong was justified away as
being in the victim's best interest.
My point is that you don't justify things unless you're doing something fundamentally wrong. If the justification of, "they're not really people and this is actually good for them," didn't exist, then everything you've given as an example would have been seen as actually horrific, even in the times they existed. If there was no deeper morality, then the perpetrators would have no need to justify or explain their actions. They'd just do it and be applauded for doing so.
But even if you don't buy that, then let's look at it this way. If morality is 100% a social construct, then there is no absolute morality. We look back and see slavery as wrong because, as you put it, we're in a cultural position to do so. So slavery is morally wrong now, according to our society. Does that mean it wasn't actually wrong before? In fact, with slavery, you have a perfect example of a society perpetuating itself at the expense of another. America went to another community, one that it didn't have any vested interest in, and kidnapped its people as a workforce in order to drive it's own economy. Was that morally appropriate? If morality is just a construct of society, then we're forced to conclude that, yes, it was. America did what it needed to in order to thrive. And if morality is entirely a social construct, then not only was it moral for people to sell other humans into slavery, but it's not our place to condemn that now that slavery is no longer considered moral in society. It was moral at the time and we should recognize that. And that extends to slavery that occurs in other cultures now. They're just doing what's morally right for them. Just because it's not right for us doesn't mean that it's not right for them. And what if culture changes again and suddenly it's ok to oppress certain minorities again? Is that moral? Can morality just change like that and then force us to follow suit? Is it moral that women make less than men in the workplace? If morals are contingent on society, and society has made that distinction, then it's ok. We go into a realm of pure moral relativity.
And that's why I argue that there has to be a higher morality. Something that transcends all cultures and people. Something that says, "This is wrong," no matter what the context or surrounding. Something that says that people have basic rights that isn't contingent on whether a society believes that or not. And please understand, I'm not using the concept of a higher morality to say that people are completely good moral beings or that terrible things don't happen, or that there's not a segment of people in all societies and cultures who break that morality whenever they want. But none of those facts would change the fact that the morality is there. And I argue that we can see evidence that it is there by the fact that we are horrified about these evils from the past, and the fact that even in the past, people justified those evils by saying, "
this is why morality doesn't apply in this situation."
Gotta love those threads in which every post is a wall of text. Oy.
Damar, my problem with your argument is that you keep saying a "higher morality", yet you offer no standard for that morality. You cannot codify or describe it in absolute terms. I assume this because you have not done so thus far.
Argue about this evil or this good or this or that morality or this or that justification all you want, but until you can codify this "higher morality", I can in no way see how it is different from your creating your own means to justify any action as moral: "Well, clearly, X is right under the 'higher morality'".
Quote from: Damar on October 13, 2011, 05:21:18 PM
I would argue there is a higher thing that makes a cat not a fish, namely it's very being. A fish is a thing that swims and is delicious. A cat is a thing that purrs, coughs up hairballs, and is probably delicious but not in a culturally appropriate way. You can call them whatever you want, but whether you call the thing that swims a fish, cat, or human, it's still that thing that swims. Consensus comes about because of this thing's existence and underlying identity. It's identity doesn't come about because society has reached a consensus.
No. You completely miss the point. What you describe is the antithesis of the point. The point is that yes, a cat is not a fish, but when I use the syllogism "I do not regularly encounter X; therefore some higher reason exists why X is not so" as you did regarding sociopathic behavior and higher morality, I have engaged in a compound fallacy.
Let's try another-- "I do not regularly encounter charitable people (people are not in general helpful unless asked and even then there is no guarantee and they aren't exactly falling over each other to give money at any of the charity boxes in town and what's more they are unlikely to step in to help someone they see in trouble on the street unless they know someone involved), ergo the higher morality must preclude charity." You can come back at this with "well, they justify their own bad behavior", but you won't have assailed or even come close to my point which is that the structure of the argument in question is inherently flawed.
Quote from: Damar on October 13, 2011, 05:21:18 PM
Societies have tried to justify them in the past, but like I said, the fact that you (you meaning "you all" in the societal sense, report me to the English language thread if you must) justify means that there is something you're justifying against. Again, evidence of a higher morality, of inalienable human rights.
This argument shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the semantics of the term "justify": it is not necessary for every single justification to be "against" something else. It is entirely possible to justify something in its own right against nothing else. There is no appellative justification for the physical laws that govern the universe: they are self-justifying by the very fact that they are.
Quote from: Damar on October 13, 2011, 05:21:18 PM
If morality is simply created by society alone and what perpetuates the society, then there should be nothing morally wrong about raiding some city, killing and pillaging, and bringing the resources back to your community. In fact, scratch it not being morally wrong, societal morality would demand you do such things, for the good of the community.
No. A social morality based on the propagation and betterment of a single society would realize that it is not in the best interests of any given society to be in a state of constant war with its neighbors and any new cultures it may encounter.
Quote from: Damar on October 14, 2011, 08:12:04 AM
My point is that you don't justify things unless you're doing something fundamentally wrong. If the justification of, "they're not really people and this is actually good for them," didn't exist, then everything you've given as an example would have been seen as actually horrific, even in the times they existed. If there was no deeper morality, then the perpetrators would have no need to justify or explain their actions. They'd just do it and be applauded for doing so.
Except that in terms of society, the fact that there wasn't societal moral consensus on the point of slavery in the global community of the 19th century is why it doesn't exist today. One moral consciousness got together and overpowered another moral consciousness and got rid of something it thought was morally wrong. In point of fact, the perpetrators were constantly having to defend their way of life from the other society that thought it was morally wrong, not from some arbitrary, voiceless higher moral authority.
Yeah, you can write/talk all you want about morality until your fingers are numb and you're blue in the face, but what matters is your actions.
Bt
Quote from: Blackthorne on October 14, 2011, 01:14:09 PM
Yeah, you can write/talk all you want about morality until your fingers are numb and you're blue in the face, but what matters is your actions.
Bt
Thank you. :highfive:
I must say, I'm really pleased at how civil this discussion has been! :D
Yeah, who would have thought it was a discussion on morality that would lead to most of the responses? God? Bah, who needs to discuss that? Morality is where it's at!
Quote from: Delling on October 14, 2011, 01:13:21 PM
Damar, my problem with your argument is that you keep saying a "higher morality", yet you offer no standard for that morality. You cannot codify or describe it in absolute terms. I assume this because you have not done so thus far.
Argue about this evil or this good or this or that morality or this or that justification all you want, but until you can codify this "higher morality", I can in no way see how it is different from your creating your own means to justify any action as moral: "Well, clearly, X is right under the 'higher morality'".
True, I haven't described any kind of absolute morality at this point. The reason for that is because if there is a higher morality, then agreeing that it exists is the first point. Everything after that is arguable depending on religious beliefs and so on. I didn't want to complicate the discussion by specifying an absolute morality that was based in a specific religion.
And, if the term "higher" morality seems too abstract or troublesome, then don't use that term. My entire argument has been that there is a morality outside of what is created by society. That's all. I specifically haven't tried to get into what it is or where morality comes from, again because that would be complicating everything at this point. My only argument has been only that morality does not exclusively come from society.
Quote from: Delling on October 14, 2011, 01:13:21 PM
Let's try another-- "I do not regularly encounter charitable people (people are not in general helpful unless asked and even then there is no guarantee and they aren't exactly falling over each other to give money at any of the charity boxes in town and what's more they are unlikely to step in to help someone they see in trouble on the street unless they know someone involved), ergo the higher morality must preclude charity." You can come back at this with "well, they justify their own bad behavior", but you won't have assailed or even come close to my point which is that the structure of the argument in question is inherently flawed.
Right, but my argument wasn't that we don't
regularly encounter people acting like sociopaths as a general rule. It was that we don't encounter people acting as sociopaths as a general rule, period. We don't find people willing to take advantage of others as a rule. And yes, you can argue that people don't want to be in a perpetual state of war, like in the example of raiding other communities. So, fine, let's break that down even further. If there was no chance that a war would occur, if you knew that when you raided that community you would totally break them and they would be done, would you then feel it was morally right? My guess is no. Morality is not abstract based on whatever culture you're in. There are certain things that are right and there are certain things that are wrong. Which comes back to the point of justification.
Quote from: Delling on October 14, 2011, 01:13:21 PM
This argument shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the semantics of the term "justify": it is not necessary for every single justification to be "against" something else. It is entirely possible to justify something in its own right against nothing else. There is no appellative justification for the physical laws that govern the universe: they are self-justifying by the very fact that they are.
To me, justification is always against something. That's what makes it a justification rather than a statement of fact. Justification can either be to clarify confusion or to explain why you're doing something against common wisdom or morality. Regardless, though, whether my definition of justification is right or wrong, the examples I gave were of people justifying against something else. With slavery, people didn't state that human slavery was morally right. Rather, they justified by saying, "Well, no, see these slaves aren't actually human. So the concept of human slavery doesn't apply." Why would you justify against something if there's not actually a morality to justify against in the first place?
Quote from: Delling on October 14, 2011, 01:13:21 PM
Except that in terms of society, the fact that there wasn't societal moral consensus on the point of slavery in the global community of the 19th century is why it doesn't exist today. One moral consciousness got together and overpowered another moral consciousness and got rid of something it thought was morally wrong. In point of fact, the perpetrators were constantly having to defend their way of life from the other society that thought it was morally wrong, not from some arbitrary, voiceless higher moral authority.
And this gets to the core of my issue with morality being a societal construct. Is that the only answer, that there wasn't a moral consensus? Were people back then less enlightened, less human? And who's to say that our moral consensus now is moral at all, compared to what future, more enlightened societies will say? For me, morality cannot be at the mercy of societal constructs. Morality is morality. Either something is right or it's wrong. It doesn't change over time. This is at the center of the issue. We can argue over what is morally right and wrong at a later time, but what does any of that matter if we can't even decide whether morality is something that is constant or not? If morality is a construct of society, then it cannot be constant. Morality must change. And that means that our actions don't matter so much as
when our actions take place. You can argue that I'm just unable to accept any kind of relativity in my morality, and you'd be right. Because to me, morality cannot be relative. It would be like arguing a god who isn't omniscient or omnipotent. What's the point in worshiping a god if those attributes aren't met? To me, either morality is set, or it's meaningless. So like I said, you can argue that I'm unable to accept relativity in morality, you can argue that I don't define my terms particularly well, or that I tend to ramble in a massive wall of text. All of which is correct. But I cannot fathom a world in which morality is relative, simply at the whim of whatever the current societal consensus is. That would lead to any number of horrific things being moral, and I cannot accept that. Like Blackthorne said, what matters is our actions. But where do our actions come from? I see them coming from something bigger than just what society says is morally correct in this particular day and age.
Quote from: Damar on October 14, 2011, 09:21:50 PM
Yeah, who would have thought it was a discussion on morality that would lead to most of the responses? God? Bah, who needs to discuss that? Morality is where it's at!
If you think about it, it makes a lot of sense. Discussing God can only lead to so many statements, and since many of us have already stated that we're atheists, you're not going to get much feedback on a comment made about God. Not that it's inappropriate to talk about God, but what do we know about Him that hasn't already been written in a 2000 year old Testament? Exactly.
Morality is more on the borderline of philosophy, and not so much religion. Religion states what you need to do to be moral. If we focused around that, there wouldn't be much leeway in this discussion. Stating how one should live his life without crossing these invisible boundaries is what we are basically discussing. I do like what Blackthorne said though. For the most part, we know what's right and what's wrong and should focus on our actions and the consequences of such actions. What makes it moral is the ambiguous law that we were given a long time ago. Wouldn't it make more sense to put aside ancient laws, and do what really is right from our own experiences? For instance, slavery is immoral but yet was supported for generations. We came to our own conclusion that slavery was wrong without the help of divine will. I'd say we can govern ourselves pretty well in these modern times, and I think God would agree. :P
Damar, I disagree with you implicitly: to argue first "let's all agree that there is a higher morality, an absolute morality" and then only once people have agreed with you, set out to delineate what it is is a Trojan horse.
It is the type of argument that whittles people down by extracting their agreement with you little by little: you would first have someone agree that there is an absolute moral authority. I have seen this done. I have lived through this very argument countless times: first get someone to consent that there is an absolute morality, then get them to consent ounce by ounce and pound by pound that that moral authority agrees with YOU, and in the end, whoever best uses the tactic gets to be arbiter of morality. It was the modus operandi of the faculty and administration of my high school and of the textbooks they used.
"We're all Christian here right. Here's what Christians believe about morality." Uh-huh... didn't buy it then, not buying it now, from anyone not just you personally, Damar.
I accept that there are absolutes (I've already said that). I will not accept that there are arbitrary moral absolutes best interpreted for me by others in qua via obscuritas sola iacet. ::)
Quote from: Damar on October 14, 2011, 09:21:50 PM
It would be like arguing a god who isn't omniscient or omnipotent. What's the point in worshiping a god if those attributes aren't met?
That's pretty much what the ancient Greeks and Romans (and who knows how many other cultures) did.
Quote from: Damar on October 14, 2011, 09:21:50 PM
To me, either morality is set, or it's meaningless. So like I said, you can argue that I'm unable to accept relativity in morality, you can argue that I don't define my terms particularly well, or that I tend to ramble in a massive wall of text. All of which is correct. But I cannot fathom a world in which morality is relative, simply at the whim of whatever the current societal consensus is. That would lead to any number of horrific things being moral, and I cannot accept that.
I agree that there is a "higher" absolute morality - but that is based on my belief in God. I don't think there is a way to logically "prove" one way or the other. There will always be people who don't accept your assumptions. I think that is a mistake a lot of Christians make - thinking that if they just present enough arguments, everyone will be convinced to believe as they do. It's pretty hard (if not impossible) to objectively analyze your own preconceptions.
Ultimately, any belief is based on faith of one sort or another. Scientists have faith in the scientific method and in the work and conclusions of scientists that came before them. Most of us have faith that our perceptions of the world are representative of reality.
It's not that I don't think that sort of reasoning isn't worthwhile. It's important to know why you believe what you believe. Questioning your faith can either lead to strengthening it or to casting doubt on its validity. Ultimately, you have to take some things by faith or you would never be able to believe anything. For example, I believe that there are atoms and molecules, even though I've never seen them. I haven't even read the research that led to the conclusion that they exist (but I
could - not that I would be able to follow it all).
I guess I've been coming across differently than I intended, because in no way am I trying to get people to agree with my particular morality. Heck, I haven't even tried to discuss what my particular morality is. Like I said before, the point was made that morality is a societal construct. I'm arguing that I don't see that. I'm not trying to say that the morality comes from god, that it's a higher Christian morality, or even that people need to follow it. Literally the only point I'm making is that societal constructs are not the end all and be all of morality. There is something outside of that. Trying to discuss what that morality is would be pointless if there's not even a consensus that the morality exists outside of a created form.
Quote from: Fierce Deity on October 14, 2011, 10:51:35 PM
Morality is more on the borderline of philosophy, and not so much religion. Religion states what you need to do to be moral. If we focused around that, there wouldn't be much leeway in this discussion. Stating how one should live his life without crossing these invisible boundaries is what we are basically discussing.
And I completely agree. Which is why I've tried to confine my arguments to what is seen in society and not to religious rhetoric or my own morality. That may have made my wall of text arguments seem more nebulous (and I'm sure my rambling nature didn't help that any.)
So please let me put out there that I'm not trying to convert anyone to a higher morality. Rather, a statement was made and I simply meant to make a counterargument and to back it up. Not trying to convert, just defend why what I believe makes sense to me from a philosophical view, as well as from what we see in society. That's it. I'm not trying to make the starting point, "let's all believe in a higher morality." Rather, I'm trying to demonstrate how a morality outside of culture seems to manifest, despite the fact that there's been a lot of evil in societies. I'm no more trying to make everyone agree with me any more than anyone else is trying to make me agree with them that morality is a construct of society.
And the concept of faith, while important, for me, can't be the final answer. There might be some things that have to be taken on faith, like whether god exists, however that doesn't mean that faith is the final answer. There are still serious questions that have to be brought up, like why evil exists with a good god, how an omniscient god jives with free will, and so on. That's why it's important to break things down and figure out what is believed and why. Again, that's all I'm doing with the argument that morality is not a social construct. I have no end game and I certainly don't want to come across like I do.
QuoteSo, fine, let's break that down even further. If there was no chance that a war would occur, if you knew that when you raided that community you would totally break them and they would be done, would you then feel it was morally right? My guess is no.
That depends on who you are and how you're brought up. If you're somebody living here, now, in a modern society which says that compassion and understanding are good, then you would not attack that city. If you were a Viking then why the hell wouldn't you?
I actually agree with some of what you're saying, but in terms which are framed VERY differently. You say that there is a higher morality which privileges the rights of all humans. In my view, there is an inner "morality" (and I put that word in quotes for a reason) which privileges the rights of people in your own society or tribe.
My reasoning is thus: love and compassion and guilt exist. They're not just intellectual, people feel them. They arose, in my view, because it was beneficial for animals to feel emotional attachment to others in their own tribe because 1) many of their fellows were actually their family, so by protecting them they were protecting similar genes (leading to the perpetuation of those genes) and 2) even if they weren't family, if animals stick together they're more likely to survive.
So I have an evolutionary explanation for sympathy. Fast-forward a few million years and you get humans. They have sympathy, but mostly for people who are like them. Outsiders are shunned and mistrusted. On top of these two impulses (trust in those like you, distrust of those unlike you) are all the societal bits and pieces like "We must have human sacrifices to keep the sun going" or "Monarchy is decided by God so our king is divine" or "Sex between two men is the most noble form of love". While these all have interesting histories behind them and would be fascinating to look at individually, they are all societally specific.
So, ultimately - yes, I think there is more to morality than society's whims. Each person carries around evolutionary baggage in the form of sympathy and emotions and this will affect them as much as society's norms. But to say that each human being has an inherent love for all other humans? That's wrong, and it's borne out by the terrible acts of violence and hatred that people have inflicted upon each other over the centuries. The war between Carthage and Rome over the Mediterranean; the persecution of the Jews throughout history; the war in Bosnia, in which people who had been neighbours mere months before suddenly turned on each other because insane politicians said that their religious differences mattered and they were now at war. Those are not the acts of people who know what they're doing is wrong but who overrule their morality out of greed. Those are the acts of a species whose first rule is "Kill the others, take things for ourselves".
(Sorry for not reading the whole discussion first.... but I figured I'd just throw this out there. :D)
Well, alright, I'm a Lutheran.
That said, the only religious groups I can say I wholeheartedly disagree with are the Westboro Baptist Church (sorry, your message is that God hates? No, you're not a religion, you're a bunch of pathetic people looking for attention.) and Scientology (only because the guy who founded the religion said in an interview that he wanted to found a religion to make money.... and then proceeded to found a religion that made him filthy rich.... :S)
...and I apologize to any devout Scientologists we might have on these forums. That's all I know about Scientology, it was enough to make anything about it seem silly to me.
I think that, if you boil each religion down to their very basics they come out the same: there is a higher purpose than you, and you should be nice to people. Whatever form a religion takes beyond that is fairly unnecessary, don't you think? All of the religious conflicts and close-mindedness come about when people get caught up in the details and don't focus on the big picture.
Darthkiwi, that's basically what I was getting at, so I agree with you for the most part. To clarify, though, I don't think that people necessarily have an inherent love for other humans. But I do think that there's an inherent feeling of guilt when people hurt others. Mostly. Obviously there are exceptions, like sociopaths, or people who are just really selfish. Or people that justify their actions by trying to remove certain ethnic groups from the category of "human" (like supremacists do, or people who justify genocides.) Heck, even the Romans tried to justify destroying Carthage by going to the senate and saying, "Um...so, Carthage...totally still a threat. We should totally go over there again and kill them all before they pick themselves up, bandage themselves up, and throw rocks at us. And then we can salt the earth. Just to be sure." It's a weak justification, but still a justification, which I think points to some guilt, or some nagging feeling that what they were doing wasn't right, even if they immediately pushed it out of their mind. But again, that doesn't mean that I think people love each other. Just that there is a morality that holds us back from acting completely like sociopaths. Where that morality comes from, though, is an entirely different discussion, whether it's evolutionary or god or something unique to humans. But I'm not even touching that discussion for now. So I'll just leave it that I agree with you on there being something outside of the whims of society.
And yeah, cray, as much as I try to respect all religions, Scientologists do tend to aggravate me a bit. I think the main reason is (aside from the fact that they do seem to be a straight up scam and extremely cultish) that they actually do harm to people. Their beliefs will keep people from getting psychiatric help, which leads to higher rates of suicide and a worse quality of life. Not that I believe that a person's religion should be banned, even when it goes to that extreme, but it is upsetting to see people who could get help not receive it because of a belief. And I feel the same way about extreme Christians who shun medicine for prayer only, or who won't vaccinate because somehow they've tied that in to evil (or latch on to vaccinations causing autism or other developmental disorders which is just completely untrue and shown to be so over and over again.)
@Damar - Sorry. I didn't mean to imply that you were trying to convince everyone that you're right and they're wrong. I was speaking in general terms.
Quote from: darthkiwi on October 15, 2011, 01:36:21 PM
In my view, there is an inner "morality" (and I put that word in quotes for a reason) which privileges the rights of people in your own society or tribe.
My reasoning is thus: love and compassion and guilt exist. They're not just intellectual, people feel them. They arose, in my view, because it was beneficial for animals to feel emotional attachment to others in their own tribe because 1) many of their fellows were actually their family, so by protecting them they were protecting similar genes (leading to the perpetuation of those genes) and 2) even if they weren't family, if animals stick together they're more likely to survive.
So I have an evolutionary explanation for sympathy.
I had meant to point out that that is a common explanation for "higher morality" that doesn't rely on the existence of God.
Quote from: crayauchtin on October 16, 2011, 03:47:11 PM
That said, the only religious groups I can say I wholeheartedly disagree with are the Westboro Baptist Church (sorry, your message is that God hates? No, you're not a religion, you're a bunch of pathetic people looking for attention.)
This. People like that are an embarrassment (actually, that's not a strong enough word) to real Christians.
Quote from: snabbott on October 17, 2011, 04:00:40 PM
Quote from: crayauchtin on October 16, 2011, 03:47:11 PM
That said, the only religious groups I can say I wholeheartedly disagree with are the Westboro Baptist Church (sorry, your message is that God hates? No, you're not a religion, you're a bunch of pathetic people looking for attention.)
This. People like that are an embarrassment (actually, that's not a strong enough word) to real Christians.
There are words for what they are... they're just archaic, Sumerian and written in blood. :evil: (...or I recently watched Evil Dead with my roommates).
...but no. Seriously, there are sufficiently negative words for them out there. I'm sure of it. If words like "deinos" and "iontach" exist, somewhere there is a word for exactly what those people are. (This is a logical fallacy, but I am not using it as an argument or to support a point, merely rhetorically to reflect an expectation. :P)
Quote from: Damar on October 17, 2011, 03:10:20 PM
And I feel the same way about extreme Christians who shun medicine for prayer only, or who won't vaccinate because somehow they've tied that in to evil (or latch on to vaccinations causing autism or other developmental disorders which is just completely untrue and shown to be so over and over again.)
Well, those are two different crazy somewhat religiously motivated groups (though the latter is considerably more open in terms of its believers): the former is an actual cult called the Christian Science movement... it is creeeeeeeeeeeeeeeepy.
Yeah, Christian Science does go off into cult-land. And so does Westboro. Actually, they probably fall a little short of being a full cult. From what I've heard, the church is mainly just family of the preacher there. So it's less a cultish religion and more just a crazy, brainwashed family. And yes, there are definitely words for them. But this board won't let me type them without replacing most of the letters with asterisks.
Not that being a cult is 100% going to mean something bad. Technically speaking Christianity and Islam both started as cults. They just got big enough that they could be called their own religion now. Same with Buddhism, Latter Day Saints, Jehovah's Witnesses, and others.
Quote from: Damar on October 17, 2011, 08:31:28 PM
Not that being a cult is 100% going to mean something bad. Technically speaking Christianity and Islam both started as cults. They just got big enough that they could be called their own religion now. Same with Buddhism, Latter Day Saints, Jehovah's Witnesses, and others.
That's so true -- the word "cult" has a negative connotation but it really just means it's a religion without as many followers.
I apologize in advance if I come off as rude. That is NOT my intention at all. But as a life long Christian Scientist, I have to defend my position and give our perspective.
Anyway yes there are some hardcore people who only use prayer for medicinal purposes. We have what are called practitioners that someone can call and ask to pray for them when they are in crisis. And for them, it works. I, on the other hand, do not do that. I take 6 medications a day for my different health problems. It's up to the person to interpret it the way they want to. Here's a link to our six main tenets and other things from our church. They can explain it better than I can. If you have any questions I will be glad to answer them either here or via private message.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_Science_tenets,_prayers,_and_statements
If I'm understanding it correctly (and it's quite possible that I am not), the idea behind spiritual healing in Christian Science is that disease isn't real.
Something like:
1. God is completely good.
2. God created everything.
3. Because God is good, he couldn't (or wouldn't) create anything bad.
4. Evil and disease are bad, therefore God did not create them, therefore they are not real.
So if people can realize that there is no illness, they will be well.
Somewhere in there was the idea that only spiritual and not physical things are real. :S
I've probably made a mistake in there, but that's the way it sounds to me.
Oh, and Kristen, you didn't come off as being the least bit rude. :)
Yeah, if that's how it goes, I'd be glad to show them how real my kidney failure is.
Bt
@Damar: I think we've got to a point in our discussion where we can't do much more discussion (of that subject, anyway) without flogging a dead horse. I know what your opinion is, you know mine, we've both learned a bit about the other but further discussion would probably not go anywhere. So, I respect your opinion but maintain that I disagree with it.
@writerlove: what is it that sets Christian Science apart from other christian groups such as Protestantism? Why are you a member of this group rather than another? I'm not trying to be rude, I'm genuinely curious. It seems to me that your six tenets are not so different to the beliefs of many other christian groups.
And yes, there are some very strange cults out there:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenu#Summary
QuoteXenu (play /ˈziːnuː/ zee-noo),[1][2][3] also spelled Xemu, was, according to the founder of Scientology L. Ron Hubbard, the dictator of the "Galactic Confederacy" who, 75 million years ago, brought billions[4][5] of his people to Earth in a DC-8-like spacecraft, stacked them around volcanoes and killed them using hydrogen bombs. Official Scientology dogma holds that the essences of these many people remained, and that they form around people in modern times, causing them spiritual harm.[1][6]
These events are known within Scientology as "Incident II",[7] and the traumatic memories associated with them as The Wall of Fire or the R6 implant. The narrative of Xenu is part of Scientologist teachings about extraterrestrial civilizations and alien interventions in earthly events, collectively described as space opera by Hubbard. Hubbard detailed the story in Operating Thetan level III (OT III) in 1967, warning that the R6 "implant" (past trauma)[8] was "calculated to kill (by pneumonia, etc.) anyone who attempts to solve it".
:rofl:
Kiwi: That's the point I'm trying to make, actually. People try to make us all radical but we're not much different from other Christians. Why was Jesus able to heal? Because he didn't see the matter, the sin or disease. He saw the true spiritual being that is within us. We believe our true form is from Genesis chapter 1. God made us in his "image and likeness". Then matter/sin/evil what have you is originates from Genesis chapter 2. It's a constant battle to cancel out the mortal mind. People make fun of us because some of us don't use medicine but really, it's no different than what Jesus did. Did he ask the woman with the infirmity what kind of disease it was? No. He simply banished the evil from her body. Jesus had in him what we call the Christ (that came from God) and now it is within the rest of us.
Why am I a Christian Scientist? To put it simply: it just makes sense to me. I grew up in the church. I tried going to some other Christian groups in college. It was too evangelistic for me. I didn't want to be one of those zealous people shoving their religion down someone's throat. I believe spirituality is a personal thing and everyone has to find his or her own answer. Those sects of Christianity are more emotion based (NOT saying that's wrong... just not my cup of tea). I feel like Christian Science is more intellectual. We analyze and see things for what they are. (Again not saying others don't... just giving my opinion).
(Posted on: October 19, 2011, 02:45:50 PM)
Quote from: snabbott on October 19, 2011, 11:38:02 AM
If I'm understanding it correctly (and it's quite possible that I am not), the idea behind spiritual healing in Christian Science is that disease isn't real.
Something like:
1. God is completely good.
2. God created everything.
3. Because God is good, he couldn't (or wouldn't) create anything bad.
4. Evil and disease are bad, therefore God did not create them, therefore they are not real.
So if people can realize that there is no illness, they will be well.
Somewhere in there was the idea that only spiritual and not physical things are real. :S
I've probably made a mistake in there, but that's the way it sounds to me.
Oh, and Kristen, you didn't come off as being the least bit rude. :)
THANK YOU! That is exactly our stance. :D
Quote from: writerlove on October 19, 2011, 12:55:14 PM
People make fun of us because some of us don't use medicine but really, it's no different than what Jesus did.
The people who "make fun of you" also consider Jesus (or more accurately, the stories told about him) to be quite silly as well.
Bt
If you wouldn't mind me asking a few questions about Christian Science, I would like to play the Devil's advocate for a moment, writerlove.
So if one were to denounce the existence of a disease, they would then theoretically be considered "well" or on the "path to being well"? I have to ask, because people on the path to being well are still affected by the disease or at least still have some symptoms.
Also, (and this doesn't have to be taken seriously) if disease is unreal, then what would be the difference between someone who has contracted the symptoms of a disease and a hypochondriac who thinks he has caught a multitude of diseases but is as healthy as a horse?
A friend of my dad's is a Christian Scientist, but as an outsider, I was never able to understand the specifics. I've always been curious about the belief system though.
First of all, my name is Kristen so you may call me that if you like :) *points to signature*
I'm not saying healings are always instantaneous. Some are and some aren't. I've heard about both. A prayer one can say is "this (insert symptom) is not of God. It's erroneous. I am the perfect, whole child of God."
I'd say there's no difference between the two you proposed. Here is a quote from our church founder Mary Baker Eddy about the subject
"Disease is an experience of mortal mind. It is fear made manifest on the body. Divine Science takes away this physical sense of discord, just as it removes a sense of moral or mental inharmony."
- Science and Health (ch. XIV)
She's basically saying there is no difference between the hypochondriac and someone who is actually sick because both are in the mindset that "I am sick, there is something wrong with me."
Also, to refer to the medicine notion from earlier. We are not REQUIRED to not take medicine. Even Mrs. Eddy admits that. "If Christian Scientists ever fail to receive aid from other Scientists – their brethren upon whom they may call – God will still guide them into the right use of temporary and eternal means."-Science and Health, pg. 444.
I thank you all for your interest and kindness. I've been ridiculed a bit for it so I'm pretty reluctant to speak about my beliefs outside of close friends and church itself. I just want people to understand what we're about. It irritates me to no end how some other Christians just ridicule someone just because they don't believe the exact same doctrine. It's rubbish in my opinion. We both believe in God. We both know Jesus is the Son of God. So why hate on the specifics, just like Cray said. If you're an atheist, I respect that. I don't understand the position but I don't hate on it. Again I think finding your morality, by whatever means, is a personal thing and everyone is different.
I hope I didn't sound like I was ridiculing you Kristen. I'm honestly interested, I'm just in the dark. I know nothing of this particular denomination. I try to learn about other denominations as much as possible. I don't mean to come off as arrogant, just curious and willing to admit my ignorance.
So just to make sure I get what you are saying, disease is only the physical manifestation of its mental manifestation? So when somebody thinks that their vessel (otherwise, body) is broken somehow, it thus becomes so? Or is it still just in the mind, and not a physical matter at all? I may have confused myself, but I'm not sure. :S
Quote from: writerlove on October 19, 2011, 12:55:14 PM
Quote from: snabbott on October 19, 2011, 11:38:02 AM
If I'm understanding it correctly (and it's quite possible that I am not), the idea behind spiritual healing in Christian Science is that disease isn't real.
Something like:
1. God is completely good.
2. God created everything.
3. Because God is good, he couldn't (or wouldn't) create anything bad.
4. Evil and disease are bad, therefore God did not create them, therefore they are not real.
So if people can realize that there is no illness, they will be well.
Somewhere in there was the idea that only spiritual and not physical things are real. :S
I've probably made a mistake in there, but that's the way it sounds to me.
Oh, and Kristen, you didn't come off as being the least bit rude. :)
THANK YOU! That is exactly our stance. :D
Given those beliefs, the idea of spiritual healing makes perfect sense.
There is an assumption in there that I (respectfully) disagree with, though. I agree that God did not create evil, but He did create free will. In my understanding, sin/evil is the use of that free will to rebel against God.
Quote from: snabbott on October 20, 2011, 08:22:01 AM
Quote from: writerlove on October 19, 2011, 12:55:14 PM
Quote from: snabbott on October 19, 2011, 11:38:02 AM
If I'm understanding it correctly (and it's quite possible that I am not), the idea behind spiritual healing in Christian Science is that disease isn't real.
Something like:
1. God is completely good.
2. God created everything.
3. Because God is good, he couldn't (or wouldn't) create anything bad.
4. Evil and disease are bad, therefore God did not create them, therefore they are not real.
So if people can realize that there is no illness, they will be well.
Somewhere in there was the idea that only spiritual and not physical things are real. :S
I've probably made a mistake in there, but that's the way it sounds to me.
Oh, and Kristen, you didn't come off as being the least bit rude. :)
THANK YOU! That is exactly our stance. :D
Given those beliefs, the idea of spiritual healing makes perfect sense.
There is an assumption in there that I (respectfully) disagree with, though. I agree that God did not create evil, but He did create free will. In my understanding, sin/evil is the use of that free will to rebel against God.
I'd have to agree. I don't feel like ignoring evil/sin makes the particular evil not exist, it just allows the believer to live in a world where they don't have to concern themselves with it. If I ignored the existence of war in this world by avoiding the news and public forums of discussion, I can imagine my life being a little easier, but it doesn't mean that war does not exist. I respectfully would have to disagree Kristen, but I hope I don't offend you with my words.