Oh, well that is a relief! There is so much miscommunication in this thread. I still feel that my position is misunderstood, such as your comment about it being difficult to not believe in God, Superking not understanding how atheists can have morality, and the idea that atheism is a religion, or religious like.
To address the first of those all I can say is that when I was growing up no one in my family ever mentioned God. My parents are not religious. My grandparents were not religious either and when they passed away my parents made no mention of them going to heaven. God was not a thing that existed in my family home. None of my friends were religious and very few people in our community went to the local church.
As far as I am concerned my childhood was closer to idyllic than difficult. The kids in our district had a lot of personal freedom, a lot of physical space, and a lot of free play. Come to think of it, the only kids who really had it difficult belonged to a Mormon family. Everyone felt sorry for them.
I think the fact that our societies are based on secular morals addresses the second point.
And as for the third - I would love someone to explain how atheism is like religion. Get a definition of religion and apply it. I suspect that no one can and no one will because, like the idea that life without God is difficult, this is simply another Christian misunderstanding, conflating science with atheism and religion. After all, Christianity purportedly offers a complete understanding of the universe. And so some Christians see something like ‘Darwinism’ as an ‘alternative’ because it infringes upon their own religious beliefs. Never mind that Darwin was himself a Christian and that he was simply describing reality, and that if it weren’t for him it would have been Wallace, or another. We could go back further to Lyell and his geological observations, which suggested that, in reality, the earth is much older than previously imagined. Or we could even back to Galileo.
But science is not an alternative religion, and statements like ‘the earth revolves around the sun’ are not a religious ones. They are simply statements of fact. If you think that evolution is an alternative religion then that says more about your lack of education than anything else. Buddhists don’t see such basic scientific facts as alternative religions. Evolution is not a controversial issue in Japan. Quoting studies and using scholarship is not a religious act.
It’s true that, if you’re looking for advice about how to deal with WW3, there’s not much in the NT about it. In fact, the whole point of Christianity - as I’ve said three or four times - is that it’s very short on rules, which is something most people just can’t cope with. Religions have to have rules, right? That’s what religions are. And then there’s Jesus, who basically tells us to figure it out for ourselves, the only assistance being the example of his life and a few aphorisms. We’re left to read between the lines.
Does that mean it’s unclear? I don’t think so. Ask a bunch of people to read (say) the US Constitution and summarize the overarching themes, the meaning and the purpose, and they’ll all say very similar things. They’ll go on about freedom, equality, and suchlike. Likewise with the NT. There are probably some people who could turn it into a call for Holy War. The average person isn’t that twisty.
As for the turn-the-other-cheek philosophy: from a personal point of view, I’ve simply never been placed in a life-or-death situation where - say - it’s me or the other guy. Avoiding violence has worked out pretty well so far.
Why “obviously”? What was he intending, then?
That wouldn’t have been necessary; he was executed with common criminals.
I agree. That’s why I mentioned ‘rational actors’. I don’t think Jesus was suggesting that, faced with annihilation, genocide, or rampaging nutcases, one should simply roll over and face extinction with fortitude. Nevertheless, non-violent resistance has a storied history and proven value in certain situations. Again, this comes back to one of his few real “commandments” - to develop a conscience and to use your head. You might say that’s rather trite, but since a large slice of humanity aren’t interested in either morality or intellect, I’d suggest maybe not.
Well, I’m surprised that you get ‘apocalyptic’ from the NT. I’d say it’s anything but. Perhaps there is too much room for interpretation …
As for not marrying: Jesus made one comment on the subject of divorce, and apart from that, he didn’t seem to have many opinions on the subject of sex and relationships.
Paul isn’t my favourite character in the NT. Remember he was an ex-murderer and torturer; a reformed Inquisitor. I wouldn’t have trusted him as far as I could spit him, even if God apparently did. Bottom line is, he wasn’t Jesus. He was just a man, and his musings and opinions were just musings and opinions. He often qualified them as such (for example, in the letter to some recently-converted city, he mentioned that he wasn’t going to burden them with arbitrary rules).
Not even close. That’s the sort of explanation that would appeal to the tinfoil hat crowd. The best explanation was that Jesus was taking a balanced and realistic view, because:
[quote]
As for pacifism, it only works in certain situations. [/quote]
Well, OK. I can’t argue with your personal experience. It’s just that most people who consider questions like ‘why are we here?’, or look out at the universe in all its incomprehensible awesomeness and think, ‘why is that here?’ consider that there must be some purpose or meaning in it all, and then sometimes they starting wondering if there’s a God. And I guess other people just don’t.
Yeah, I must say I would too
As I said, there’s a big difference between religion/religiosity/religious rules and ritual, and faith.
But there is no such thing as ‘secular morals’. Every moral system in existence is underpinned by some philosophy, some metaphysical world-view, that starts with axiomatic assumptions about (say) the value of human life, even if they’re never explicitly articulated. In some countries human life has no value, or more precisely has less value than other things, such as ‘honour’. Some societies define different kinds of human, with different values placed upon their lives. If you still contest this, I suggest living in some of the world’s shitholes to observe how people interact with each other. You don’t have to go anywhere too exotic: a council estate in Glasgow will do.
Wikipedia: A religion is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence.
Do you think Atheism doesn’t fit that definition? Certainly Atheism can be a lot broader than most religions, but it is nevertheless a belief system that has certain essential features (ie., a belief in no God) and “relates humanity to an order of existence”.
It offers a frame of reference for the human place in the universe. Not much else. It doesn’t purport to explain how the universe works, why it’s there, or what it is.
Some do, and I’m not sure on what basis they form those opinions. Personally I don’t have any problem with Darwin (or Galileo…).
Of course not. But nevertheless some people do take it as one, even though it doesn’t work well in that capacity. That’s what I meant when I said it’s hard to have no religion at all. There’s an overwhelming human need - for most people! - to fill that philosophical gap with something.
It’s true that, if you’re looking for advice about how to deal with WW3, there’s not much in the NT about it. In fact, the whole point of Christianity - as I’ve said three or four times - is that it’s very short on rules, which is something most people just can’t cope with. Religions have to have rules, right? That’s what religions are. And then there’s Jesus, who basically tells us to figure it out for ourselves, the only assistance being the example of his life and a few aphorisms. We’re left to read between the lines.
Does that mean it’s unclear? I don’t think so. Ask a bunch of people to read (say) the US Constitution and summarize the overarching themes, the meaning and the purpose, and they’ll all say very similar things. They’ll go on about freedom, equality, and suchlike. Likewise with the NT. There are probably some people who could turn it into a call for Holy War. The average person isn’t that twisty.[/quote]
Except, as history has shown us, the vast majority of average people are that twisty- they ignore the example from Jesus’ life because it is inconvenient.
And speaking of the meaning of the Constitution being clear on freedom and equality, ever hear of the Civil War?
Lucky you- millions aren’t so fortunate- and of course the reason you are so fortunate is that other people are doing it for you- the police and army. You’re like a guy carrying his steak home from the butchers congratulating himself that he’s so morally superior that he’s never killed an animal.
Why “obviously”? What was he intending, then? [/quote]
Uh, if you’re going to take on the Roman Empire, or even the Temple guards, you’re going to need more than two swords, right?
“Comrades, tonight we rise up against the vicious forces of government oppression that have crushed us into the dirt. So, we need weapons”
"Well, I got my shotgun and Fred there’s got his .22. "
“OK, that’s enough”.
Either Jesus was rebuking the disciples for not understanding him, or he was trying to make sure he got arrested for rebellion: suicide-by-cop
That wouldn’t have been necessary; he was executed with common criminals.[/quote][/quote]
Sure- but there are lots of New Testament examples that repeat themselves, even withing single Gospels
…
Well, I’m surprised that you get ‘apocalyptic’ from the NT. I’d say it’s anything but. Perhaps there is too much room for interpretation …[/quote]
Indeed
[quote]
“For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and will then repay every man according to his deeds. Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom. (Matthew 16: 27, 28)
“Behold, I have told you in advance. So if they say to you, ‘Behold, He is in the wilderness,’ do not go out, or, ‘Behold, He is in the inner rooms,’ do not believe them. For just as the lightning comes from the east and flashes even to the west, so will the coming of the Son of Man be. Wherever the corpse is, there the vultures will gather.
But immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from the sky, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky with power and great glory. And He will send forth His angels with a great trumpet and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of the sky to the other.
Now learn the parable from the fig tree: when its branch has already become tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near; so, you too, when you see all these things, recognize that He is near, right at the door. Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place. (Matthew 24: 25-34)
“Then they will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory. And then He will send forth the angels, and will gather together His elect from the four winds, from the farthest end of the earth to the farthest end of heaven. Now learn the parable from the fig tree: when its branch has already become tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near. Even so, you too, when you see these things happening, recognize that He is near, right at the door. Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place… (Mark 13:26-30)
…
Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son…” (Hebrews 1:1-2)
“Now these things happened to them as an example, but they were written down for our instruction, on whom the end of the ages has come.” (1 Corinthians 10:11)
“And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near.” (Hebrews 10:24-25)
“Children, it is the last hour, and as you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come. Therefore we know that it is the last hour.” (1 John 2:18)
“Do not seek a wife. This is what I mean, brothers: the appointed time has grown very short. From now on, let those who have wives live as though they had none, and those who mourn as though they were not mourning, and those who rejoice as though they were not rejoicing, and those who buy as though they had no goods, and those who deal with the world as though they had no dealings with it. For the present form of this world is passing away.” (1 Corinthians 7:27,29-31)
“The end of all things is near…” (1 Peter 4:7)[/quote]
Of course not. With the End Times coming right away, and Jesus assuming the Messiahship ( which of course included the Earthly Kingdom) there was no need. Paul on the other hand had to give rules to the scattered faithful, as the Second Coming receded into the distance, and the Church had to adjust to real life- by for example, throwing out Jesus’ teachings about turning the other cheek.
[quote=“finley”]
But there is no such thing as ‘secular morals’.[/quote]
Yes there is. The morality held by secular people is secular morals by definition. There are many moral secular people.
A philosophy of mutual respect and a desire to be treated fairly, and treat others fairly, in order to have a better mutual existence is all that is needed.
None of that has any to do with what philosophy or metaphysical world view they have.
Completely feasible. The larger moral contexts are what matter here, not petty differences. I don’t want to get hit by a rock, and it’s to my advantage to live in a society where I won’t get hit by a rock. Not hitting other people with a rock is to my advantage in the long run, and I’ll feel like shit when doing it anyway, just out of innate human compassion.
I’ve seen too much of the dark side of human nature to have much faith in innate human compassion. The FSM would be a better bet.
Moving to a less nasty place is a quick fix. The trouble is, places change character over time. Societal values are subject to entropy, and neighborhoods get colonized by the aggressive but not necessarily compassionate. You may run out of places to move to.
Want to impose your notion of innate human compassion on others? Don’t expect to have an easy go if it. You may have to slaughter a lot of rock-throwers on the way to your brave new world. People who say that the Old Testament God has no compassion while the New Testament God is a really swell guy miss the point. Jehovah treats compassion as an end, not a means. He busts heads to make people stop killing each other.
Understand this and you’ll understand how pro-life people can support the death penalty. Never confuse ends with means. Being too nicey-nice leads to violence in the end. Being nasty now – in a calculated way – can lead to civility later. That’s the paradox of practical morality that sentimental people just don’t grasp. In the long run, a social Darwinist may be more practically compassionate than Mother Teresa.
Say, how about that guy who broke into a school and slashed a little girl’s throat? It seems everybody wants him to suffer for years except me. I wish him a quick, painless death and begone from the gene pool. Which is more compassionate.
[quote=“finley”]
Paul isn’t my favourite character in the NT. Remember he was an ex-murderer and torturer; a reformed Inquisitor. I wouldn’t have trusted him as far as I could spit him, even if God apparently did.[/quote]
I must admit if it comes down to God or finley on this issue, I put my faith in finley
I think my problem in following you in these discussions is that when you say “Christianity” I keep thinking of (small ‘o’ ) orthodox Christianity. But, since you reject not only the Old Testament, but also the writings of Paul, that is not what you are talking about. You are referring to an individual religious belief system you hold, derived from orthodox Christian teachings.
The question then becomes whether you are, speaking within the typology of sociology of religion, a ‘sect’: “finleyite Christianity”- or a ‘cult’: “finleyism”.
But is it? History- almost all history- consists of some people hitting, and others getting hit. It’s certainly to the advantage of those getting hit to demand a moratorium on hitting, but it’s not necessarily for the benefit of those doing the hitting. A slave-owner over a slave; a man over a woman; a member of the dominant race/class/ethnic group/ religion: why should they want it to stop?
Any kind of evolution-based morality fails on Hume’s is/ought dichotomy. Likewise, any social contract theory.
Telling me that my morality derives from the fact that my ancestors lived in small groups on the African plains doesn’t really address the question of why I should behave morally now.
History also consists of a progression to our current morality where such acts are considered immoral. That was largely not the case in our Judeo-Christian societies until rather recently.
They may well want it to stop because if it doesn’t stop it could happen to them at some point too. Some may not, but that’s not my point. What I’m saying is that this is a valid basis for a secular morality, and I suggest that as social animals it is in fact an important pillar of our morality.
[quote]Any kind of evolution-based morality fails on Hume’s is/ought dichotomy. Likewise, any social contract theory.
Telling me that my morality derives from the fact that my ancestors lived in small groups on the African plains doesn’t really address the question of why I should behave morally now.[/quote]
I’m not sure what you mean. I don’t think morality is clearly linked to evolution–please note again that prevailing morality has shown itself to change considerably over relatively short periods of time, a blink of the eye in terms of human evolution. It does seem to me however that humans have evolved some measure of innate compassion–another pillar.
You should behave morally now because it’s in everyone’s common interest. That’s a good thing.
History also consists of a progression to our current morality where such acts are considered immoral. That was largely not the case in our Judeo-Christian societies until rather recently.
[/quote]
Time to resurrect that 50 Shades of Gray thread?
Lots of things considered moral today were once considered immoral. And before that they were once considered moral. To say that human society is becoming more omoral over time is to plot a trend line on random noise. To be charitable, there’s room for interpretation of the data.
Much of what we think of morality is really just fashion. Fashions change. That’s not progress. That’s churn.
Are you saying that, for example, our increasingly accepted modern conceptions that “A slave-owner over a slave; a man over a woman” are immoral are fashion, and don’t represent genuine change from the past?
For me, the essence of morality is that I feel it is wrong, for example, for a person to own another person as a slave. Would I want to be owned as a slave? No.
[quote=“Tempo Gain”]Are you saying that, for example, our increasingly accepted modern conceptions that “A slave-owner over a slave; a man over a woman” are immoral are fashion, and don’t represent genuine change from the past?
[/quote]
Yeah. First off, there’s plenty of slavery going on. Human trafficking is all the rage, and government immigration and border control policies seem designed to encourage it. Secondly, no matter how you try to explain away the mainstreaming of BDSM you just raise further questions.
Antisemitism is on the rise again. Liberals are openly talking about repealing the Bill of Rights. Women are coming out against feminism. People are hijacking airplanes and running them into skyscrapers, which is as bad as anything the Barbary pirates ever contemplated. Human decency – no matter how you define it – comes and goes.
The notion of steady upward progress really ought to have died with the Weimar Republic, if not with the Girondists. You really have to take a very selective look at history to think that human society just keeps getting more enlightened. Backsliding happens a lot.
I wouldn’t say I reject Paul. I simply take him for who he is: a flawed human being who might have some good ideas, or might not.
This sounds like a good idea. I wonder if I can get people to give me money?
This is, unfortunately, why Christianity can be confusing. The nature of a religion that rests on the development of a conscience (“grace”) and a single rule (Matthew 22:34-40) is that everyone will have a slightly different conception of it. Or more so than rule-based religions. Still, I don’t think my views are unique. I’ve met plenty of other people with similar ones - I mentioned “Red Letter Christians” not because I call myself that, but because it’s the closest named doctrine I could find as a point of reference for discussion.
There are also many immoral secular people (the UK is an excellent example). ‘Secular’ just means they follow rules that aren’t defined by religion, and there’s an awful lot of variation there. You’re taking a small subset - the people who behave like you - and saying, look, secular morality! It works! Well, it can happen, but it’s like balancing a pin on its point.
I have to say I agree with rowland here. You seem to be assuming the innate goodness of humanity, and that simply doesn’t accord with global experience. It doesn’t matter how logical you personally think it is to not hit people with rocks. People aren’t logical. A lot them enjoy hitting people with rocks. In some societies it’s positively advantageous: you can subjugate others with no fear of censure.
Again, I agree with rowland. What you perceive as secular morality is nothing more than fashion. Religions are a way of preserving good memes (and bad ones, of course) in a sea of ‘random noise’. Remember, a lot of people who thought they were good upright citizens owned (and still do own) slaves, or beat the shit out of their children because they thought it would do them good.
Example 1: UK morality is currently based on the idea of ‘non-judgementalism’, which is basically an extreme form of moral relativism. Thou shalt not judge, even when someone just hit someone else over the head with a rock, or a glass, which happens every single Saturday night in every single town. The rock-wielders have their own morals, which aren’t better or worse, just different.
Example 2: Philippine morality can make no sense out of ‘thou shalt not steal’ because the concept of stealing simply does not exist. The transfer of property from person A to person B, by any process, is simply a normal activity to be encouraged, especially if person B is ‘poor’. This particular theme has some overlap with the (currently fashionable) British understanding of theft, too.
[quote]
There are also many immoral secular people (the UK is an excellent example). ‘Secular’ just means they follow rules that aren’t defined by religion, and there’s an awful lot of variation there. You’re taking a small subset - the people who behave like you - and saying, look, secular morality! It works! Well, it can happen, but it’s like balancing a pin on its point.[/quote]
There are also many immoral religious people, so? I’m not even saying secular morality works. I’m saying it exists by definition, and is feasible. Why is it “like balancing a pin on its point”?
Again, these are functions of humanity, and are true either in more secular or more religious societies. I am saying though that the broad mass of people can and do agree on broad rules of morality, and can do so without any intervention from “religion” whatsoever.
And this happened despite the more powerful influence of religion at the time. I’m not saying that this is a function of secular morality either. I’m saying that generally accepted standards of morality change over time and that change can be significant. To me, for example, our increasingly accepted modern conceptions about slavery and sexual equality are significant and not “random noise”.
[quote]Example 1: UK morality is currently based on the idea of ‘non-judgementalism’, which is basically an extreme form of moral relativism. Thou shalt not judge, even when someone just hit someone else over the head with a rock, or a glass, which happens every single Saturday night in every single town. The rock-wielders have their own morals, which aren’t better or worse, just different.
Example 2: Philippine morality can make no sense out of ‘thou shalt not steal’ because the concept of stealing simply does not exist. The transfer of property from person A to person B, by any process, is simply a normal activity to be encouraged, especially if person B is ‘poor’. This particular theme has some overlap with the (currently fashionable) British understanding of theft, too.[/quote][/quote]
Certainly standards of morality vary from place to place, and have little or nothing to do with the effects of common religious beliefs.
Example 1: UK morality is currently based on the idea of ‘non-judgementalism’, which is basically an extreme form of moral relativism. Thou shalt not judge, even when someone just hit someone else over the head with a rock, or a glass, which happens every single Saturday night in every single town. The rock-wielders have their own morals, which aren’t better or worse, just different.[/quote]
Even ignoring the fact that violent crime in the UK has been dropping “like a stone” so to speak
(Same has been happening in the US and other Western countries. I personally attribute it to two things- the ban on leaded gasoline, and the aging of the population.)
Those are largely confined to young people in town centers; again I read an article the other day on how the sharp decline in binge drinking has caused large numbers of pubs dedicated to rowdy youth to close.
Though I know what you mean- my mother and sister live in Oldham; they were astonished by the cleanliness and order of Taipei and Kaohsiung.
As well, the British case is caused by economic/ social change- a large population bulge coming up just as traditional jobs (especially in the North: Scottish Independence would do wonders for the stats.) collapsed. Same thing with black gangs in American cities- the Great Northward Migration happened , and then the jobs that lured people to the cities disappeared.
Strange for a country that’s been Catholic for three hundred years- they seem to have absorbed the “no birth control, abortion or divorce” bit quite well, until recently. I would think instead that the Philippines has been governed by a corrupt family-based elite, and that people under that have grown used to the idea that, since the system is crooked, the only way to get ahead is to break the rules- just like the people at the top do.
I’m guessing you haven’t lived in the UK. The place is a f’ing disaster, held together mostly by older people who actually received an education, and/or coasting along on the economic inertia of past glories. Try talking to policemen, doctors or social workers who actually deal with the reality and have their own much more relevant statistics. Government crime reductions are achieved simply by redefining what wrongdoing is.
The country is not and never has been Catholic, at least not in the sense of a Christian denomination. A commonly-used word for “God” (Bathala/Bahala) is cognate with a Filipino creator-spirit which predates the Spanish. Witchcraft and pagan beliefs have simply been papered over with Catholic mythology.
Having said that, I can’t think of a single Catholic country that’s not in a similar position - but I guess that’s a whole different debate.
Up to a point. However, there’s a widespread lack of awareness that The Rules even exist. People will express genuine surprise at the idea that scamming or depriving someone of their property is immoral, especially if the thief is ‘deserving’ and the victim is rich. There are even various laws that legitimize certain forms of theft and extortion.
Anyway, not really the point. I was suggesting to TG that his “logical” moral viewpoint is by no means universal. He’s quite right that religion can be used to justify immoral behaviour. We don’t need to look too far back in history to see that. However, without any philosophical underpinnings, any moral code is completely at the mercy of what rowland calls fashion. It’s adrift; unmoored. Absolutely anything can determine what’s right and what’s wrong. Hence the situation in the UK. TG’s flippant response - that morals vary from place to place - simply proves the point. Other places are merely different; not better, not worse. Humanity has no inbuilt moral reference. Left to its own devices, it sinks to the moral bottom.
Because, in a completely secular context, any assault on a society’s moral code is never measured against anything (except popular opinion). Any idea is as good as any other. The pin is hit this way and that and eventually has to fall over.
This sounds like a good idea. I wonder if I can get people to give me money?