At age 17, I started reading attentively whatever Jesus, in person, says on the Gospel which I had (an Arabic Catholic one, printed in 1964). To my big surprise, I found out, even in my rather preliminary studies, crucial contradictions between his sayings and the Church’s teachings (Catholic or else). In brief, this personal study ended up, after many decades and to me in the least, what I may call ‘science of life reality’. — KerimF

How fortunate you are to be able to read the Bible in Arabic. I have found one language does not easily translate to another. Also, the Romans could not accept the Greek understanding of the trinity until they invented a new word to hold an understanding that could be expressed in Rome. I hold the idea, that people who know of Buddhism have a totally different understanding of Jesus than in the more materialistic West.

Understanding the Bible is as much about our culture as the words used. It will not be the same book to all who read it.

Much depends on our understanding of logos, reason, the controlling force of the universe made manifest in speech. How do we come to know logos? Reading a holy book or reading several holy books, or studying nature? Going to war because we believe that is God's will, is so different from not going to war because of having cause and effect logic and realizing many years after the war people will still be struggling with the effects of war. Thinking the wars are either won or lost and that is the end of that, is a huge mistake. It appears Catholics are less prone to believe God wants them to invade another country than Protestants and yet both are Christians. Christians with different consciousnesses.

I think it is easier to have agrement with scientific thinking than religious thinking? Religious people disagree and yet each is sure their different understanding are God's truth is the right one. That fact of life is what made me turn away from Christianity when was a 8 years old and a Sunday school teacher could not give a good explanation of why there a Protestants and Catholics and not agreement on God's truth. Later I found out there are many more religions, all believing they have truth and willing to kill eachother over who has the better truth. That is not moral.

You do not see a difference between what? A moral being a matter of cause and effect, or a moral being what the Bible says God likes and doesn't like? You can ask for God's forgiveness and get away with doing wrong or the failure to do right, but you can not get away with violating the laws of nature. Three dementional reality is a matter of cause and effect, not the whims of a god.

I find your question of what Jesus actually did the most interesting. I do not remember one account of Jesus participating in the sacrifice of an animal. I have not studied the bible so I am not sure what the sacrificing is about but I think it has something to do with being on God's good side. That is, this judgment is about being pleased or displeased. That is totally different from cause and effect judgment and it is the kind of judgment that can be problematic so maybe we do not want a god who takes things personally and rewards or punishes people based on his feelings about the other person? More about the distinction of different forms of judgment coming.

Yes, I know the Bible says we should not judge each other and I find it hard not to judge others. However, as I get older I am less judgmental. I think it is natural for us to judge others and this is why I bring the subject up. What I am saying goes with this year's politics and all the religious attacks and reasoning on voting for things like socialism or being opposed to it. Are "those people" deserving. Is stopping at charity and prayers enough, or do we need political action? How are we judging reality and "those people" and what we should do about reality and "those people"? I seem to be hypersensitive to what judging others has to do with our politicalchoices.

I like your explanation of why we shouldn't judge and the possibility that that will change. Right now for those who favor evolution I want to say judgment and prejudice is a biological thing. Or we could make things really messy and speak of Daniel Kahneman's explanation of fast and slow thinking. But in defining judgment as the OP tries to present it, there is a personal judgment that can be full of prejudices and unconscious decisions, or there can be a scientific judgment that is hopefully fact based and without prejudiuce or unconscious, unquestioned judgments. Such as needing to protect our families and neighborhood from those pagans and atheists or protect everyone from those people who are differrent from us. Should we build a wall and keep them out, or rescue them from bad places and give them opportunity to be one of us?

Out of time. Hope to get to others soon.

As I said before, I think you've misunderstood moral relativism. A moral claim is a claim about how others should act, not a claim about one's personal prefernces. — Isaac — khaled

A moral claim is a matter of cause and effect.

No one helped the Little Red Hen make her bread so she didn't share it.
The Little Red Engine made it over the hill because he didn't give up.
The Fox didn't get the grapes because he did give up and comforted himself by deciding they were probably sour anyway.

That is a little different from judging what others should or should not do. It is not the individual that is judged but the action and consequence.

Life is capricious. Applying a concept of justice to it is humorous to me. :lol:

"There but the grace of God go I."

But guess who was naive? Naturally the stupid bullshitter decided otherwise.
Hence McGurk resigned. — ssu

Trump is doing what he believes his base wants. And he seems to be alining himself with bullies because his supporters admire people with power. I think only Zionist Christians would support Isreal at the expense of Palestinian and other Arab nations.

Jews were Semitic along with the Arabs, but they were Europeanized when they went north. Especially Germany played a strong role in the Isreal that exists today because of its influence on the Jews who migrated to Israel. Israel would not exist if Britain had not made this possible, and when Britain tried to prevent the Jewish takeover of Palestine, the Jews took up arms against the British, and the British left well-armed Jews and unarmed Palestinians, just as the Brits left well-armed colonist with poorly armed native Americans because men like Washington wanted to make a fortune on land that the Brits promised the colonist would not take.

Hippyhead
464

One thing that the internet has brought amongst us is loneliness — Konkai


The Internet allows us to zero in on exactly what interests us in a manner the real world typically can't match. Like this forum for example, MUCH more convenient and accessible than trying to find a philosophy club which meets once a month across town somewhere.

But then, having found what we're looking for in a very convenient and accessible form, we get sucked in to it. Gradually we spend more time online and less with offline friends, because online we can do exactly what we want to do when we want to do it. The offline friends fade away over time, to be replaced by an endless horde of anonymous strangers.

Ten minutes after I leave this forum for the last time I'll be forgotten forever. None of you will be sending me a card on my birthday. :-) The price we pay for getting what we want can be steep.

Oh, and wait, here's the "good news". It's going to get worse. Way worse. Do you think text is compelling? Wait until the Net can deliver virtual reality. Digital characters customized to your exact specifications, projected in to the 3D space of your living room, or um, perhaps bedroom.

We're headed down the rabbit hole folks. Well, you are, I'll probably be dead before the big time loneliness poop hits the fan. — Hippyhead

I agree with all the good things you say about this form of communication and I disagree with a little. For example I have become very close with a woman in another forum because through private messaging I went through the death of her husband with her. This was not intentional but soon after we began communicating she learned her husband had cancer in a a short time he died. Effectively I held her hand through this very rough time in her life and our relationship has continued and evolved into some deep and personal sharing.

It was a man in Portugual who made my last birthday wonderful! He loves sharing his culture and he has a high emotional IQ sending me flowers and music when my spirits are low. True this is a limited relationship but that doesn't mean it is not wonderful at times. I am glad this relationship does not come with the unpleasant aspects of living with someone. I really enjoyed my birthday drinking wine because that is his custom, and eating a Portugese inspired dinner and watching the spiritually moving video he sent me.

I am so happy with the internet and think the pioneer women would have been a whole lot happier if they had the internet. I could live isolated in the boonies or in town and isolated because of the virus and be thrilled to get up each day and turn on my computer and reach out to all the people who come to the web. And some of you will have a very meaningful impact on my life. Thank you :hearts:

One thing that the internet has brought amongst us is loneliness. I think this is why most people want to be writers, we want to write in order to be heard. We want to find an audience, someone to listen to us, someone to relate to us.

If we were having more meaningful daily conversations, I doubt we would be publishing so much literary work. — Konkai

My logic is the opposite of yours. I love being a life long student reading books or watching videos of college lectures, and then sharing what I learn on the internet and learning from others in the forums. I have had some wonderful enlightening moments thanks to these forums, and I live these moments.

In my mundane life, I do not find the average person capable of the meaningful discussions I want. I can deal with their trivial self centered chatter for only a few minutes. I did join a discussion group at a community center and I was horrified by the ignorance! That ignorance can also show up on-line but it has been my expereince my chances of finding well informed people are much higher in forums.

Back on the streets I feel like a nurse maid, smiling and listening to people chatter, so everyone has warm fuzzy feelings, but I give very little time to that compared to my time in forums. I know I am a snob and that is bad, but really I do not find the average person well informed or with any desire to be well informed. Unless you think watching Jeapordy is getting well informed. :rofl:

For the nonbeliever, moral principle can only be sourced from within as personal opinion, — Merkwurdichliebe

Liberal education is education for good moral judgment and it results in a much higher morality and has done far more for humanity than religion. Our life span has doubled and in the US few die of starvation, and if they stopped listening to their preachers and Trump, they would stop spreading a deadly virus! Life long liberal education is far superior to being dependent and as a child who must be rewarded or punished to do the right thing.

Praying to this God to feed the starving people, or shelter the homeless will not get the job done because He did not build Noah's ark and He does not send birds to feed straving people. It is our responsibility. We have advanced civilization by accepting our responsibility to do so.

I am afraid "believers" hold many false ideas.

This is an ancient perspective that usually sees evil as a matter of acting against nature. The effect is a loss of vitality.

A drawback of this view (for some) is that it means that if the sinner does "get away with it" as you put it, then it couldnt have been evil in the first place.

In fact, with this 'cause-and-effect-morality', one comes to understand what was good or bad in retrospect, by seeing who came to bad ends.

A sibling outlook is a feature of a Christian story about a Jew who was robbed and beaten. His fellow Jews saw him and walked on by. They assumed he must have done something wrong to end up that way. The Good Samaritan comes along and makes no such judgment. The Samaritan has a less materialistic moral perspective.

Morality is more complicated and conflicted than it looks at first glance. For us, its a fusion of several different cultural views. — frank

2+2+4. There is no evil in the equation. What happens is the consequence of the action and there is no evil in the equation. However, if we know we are doing wrong, that weakens us the same as believing we are virtuous makes us strong. That is just the psychological effect of our thoughts, no evil force in the equation.

For sure, cause and effect morality, as well as religious morality, means learning from parents, teachers, friends, experience. It would be an unusual person who gets through life without regrets. If we are lucky, before we get into trouble we learn from reading, or learn from listening to our elders or when our peers are mature we can learn from them, we can even learn from the bad example of others. For sure because we are not born with this knowledge it is challenging to be a human. An advantage of cause and effect morality is the ability to have good judgment for today. That does come from holy books written in ancient times.

Very importantly, the person who does wrong does not get away with it. Where did I say we can get away with doing wrong? The person may not be unaware of the action causing harm, and in that case, the person will repeat the wrong, until made aware of the wrong. In some cases, the wrong will be the result of subconscious distress or it may be a bad habit that is very difficult to break, so more is needed than just knowing eating than cookie will mean gaining weight, or whatever is unwanted. The point is we pay a price for our wrongs if we are aware of that or not and a wrong such as slavery may not enter the wrongdoers' consciousness for 3 generations but sooner or later the wrong will enter our conscioness and we will have to pay the price.

Declaring God wants us to go to war with "those people", and entering the war believing we are doing the will of God, will have bad consequences. It is our children and their children who have to pay for our wrongs. Believing in a God, does not prevent us from doing wrong. It is developed moral judgment that prevents wrongs.

They can't join an atheist philosophy forum to discuss love, because that conversation doesn't happen here. — Hippyhead


https://thephilosophyforum.com/search?Search=Love&expand=yes&child=&forums=&or=Relevance&discenc=&mem=&tag=&pg=1&date=All&titles=1&Checkboxes%5B%5D=titles&Checkboxes%5B%5D=WithReplies&or=Relevance&user=&disc=&Checkboxes%5B%5D=child — praxis

Looks like plenty has been said of love. If anyone wants to discuss love we can pull up a past discussion or maybe start a new one? I have a concern that religious people hold false beliefs, such as thinking they are more loving, or more moral, or more protected, or are saved and the rest of us are not.

I would rather be respected than loved. I also think a notion of family duty is very important. Or there are all the flavors of love. We love our parents, spouse, children, and neighbor differently. How a good Christian can vote for Trump is beyond me. There are so many reasons to not vote for him, and separating children from their families one of them. I ended a long term relationship with a Christian friend. She thought Trump is a wonderful father to our country. That combination of religion and politics was intolerable to me! However, I am not sure Jesus thought we were equal either. He was a Jew and that is a tribal religion. The God of Abraham was not a God to everyone, so maybe Jesus would be okay with protecting those on this side of the border and keeping it closed to those not born here? I don't know, does Trump really believe there is a God greater than himself? Is he good?

I hope my political concerns are acceptable because really we need to talk about what we believe and how we act on what we believe. Does believing in a God make anyone good? Are those who do not believe in God bad?

How do you see the US being punished for its wrongs? — frank

I feel like Alice in Wonderland. I am not understanding why you ask that question.

Moral is a matter of cause and effect. We are not being punished. We are experiencing the effect of what have done.

Ok, but nobody has to believe in that advice as a matter of faith. Everyone can try it for themselves, do their own experiment, come to their own conclusion. And THAT process is what really drives religion more so than belief.

This is not complicated, except to philosophers. Everyone has experienced love in their life, and everyone has experienced hate. Some people very rationally conclude that they like love better than hate, and so they gravitate towards communities where like-minded people are discussing love.

They can't join an atheist philosophy forum to discuss love, because that conversation doesn't happen here. So they go where such conversations are happening. — Hippyhead

What makes you think everyone has experienced love? I would say for practical reasons and as a result of dysfunctional families, many choose power over love.

Perhaps a thread to discuss love is appropriate? What would being an atheist have to do with discussing love? That atheist do not discuss love is such a strange notion I feel confused. I have reread what you said a few times because I find it hard to belief you said that.

That's ONE of the things that religion is based on. Here's an example...

Jesus suggested things like "love your neighbor like yourself". That's not a mythology, that's a practical suggestion which one can experiment with and come to one's own conclusions based on one's own experience.

To believe one can know absolute truth and that there is one source of that truth, is just wrong, and those who believe that are absolutely dangerous. — Athena


Generally agree, and would add that such phenomena are not limited to the religious. — Hippyhead

Again nicely said and I am particularly delighted that you touched on the matter of authority. I am sorry everyone, I can not stop thinking of political matters and all the people who have not done the studying required for good judgment and gladly depend on their ministers to tell them how to vote, or basing their vote on one issue ignoring all the rest. These are "good people", but their actions and lack of action could lead to terrible things.

As for "do unto others", that is said in every religion and believing only one religion has God's truth is not a good thing. To know God's truth, universal law, may require learning of all religions and as the Romans did, declaring what is shared in common is what a law should be based on. I believe there are many universal truths and our laws should be based on them. However, I believe democracy is the best way to manage this, not authority over the people, because the consciousness of a few in a ruling class will not be as good as our shared consciousness, achieved through argumentation and rule by reason as opposed to authority over the people.

If one's belief in these things is properly dogmatic, then it is a religious belief, and there is a rational justification for basing one's morality on principle. — Merkwurdichliebe

Okay, let us address dogma and authority.

dog·ma
/ˈdôɡmə/
Learn to pronounce
noun
noun: dogma; plural noun: dogmas

a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.
"the rejection of political dogma" Dictionary

What does one study to be a religious authority?

What does one study to understand reality?

I think science and the liberal arts give us much better moral judgment than the God of Abraham religions. I think it is my responsibility to be my own authority on truth. Not because I know much of anything but because it is my responsibility to get and judge information the best I can and assume responsibility for every action I take. Democracy is self government and it is everyone's responsibility to serach for truth. This is totally different from relying on authority above the people.

This issue of authority is a screaming problem right now and lives are on the line.

The key is that religious belief is a conviction, impossible to change by any other notion or reasoning. — Merkwurdichliebe


Ok, sorry, not really meaning offense or trying to start a food fight, nothing personal intended, but this is just rubbish. — Hippyhead

Can I weigh in here? Religion is based on mythology not facts that have been validated. Morality based on cause and effect is akin to science and facts that can be validated. It is not absolute because our individual and shared consciousness is limited, and what we hold to be true changes as we expand our consciousness to be inclusive of all others and the planet we live on. To believe one can know absolute truth and that there is one source of that truth, is just wrong, and those who believe that are absolutely dangerous. Be careful of the conviction! Being a convict of what one thinks is a problem.

I see what you're saying. In medieval times warlords paid attention to their moral standing in the eyes of their soldiers because if the soldiers became convinced God had abandoned them, the will to fight would wane. The soldiers would fear that they might be fighting against God and so dooming themselves to hell.

So if nothing else, God can be a very powerful aspect of the human psyche. — frank

That was beautifully said, and so is the notion of cause and effect (morality) that strong, when it is understood. I have lost one of my most precious books that had serval sayings about the importance of responsibility and I regret I don't remember them, but they in line with the notion of karma. If we fail to be fully responsible for our actions, we loose the opportunity that the responsibility gave us.

"Responsibility educates." Wendell Philips

A nation led by a person who does not take responsibility but blames others, is a nation in trouble, and unfortunately, citizens of the US have not been prepared for democracy since the 1958 National Defense Education Act, and is now a nation in big trouble. Since the National Defense Act instead of preparing everyone for independent thinking, they were prepared to rely on authority because this is the fastest way to advance technology. The act ended education for good moral judgment and left moral training to the church. Now the leader of the US shares much in common with a past leader of Germany and so do the citizens share much in common with those who followed that leader. Now I am arguing, no, we do not get away with our wrongs. I am hoping people understand what I am saying about responsibility,

Jesus is not going to save us any more than he saved the Germans, and thinking we can get away with our wrongs is just wrong!

Even if the consequences of an action (example: stealing) will be the the same despite the particular player involved, for the nonbeliever, anyone who steals cannot and will not be judged the same in every case. For the believer, there is one standard by which everyone is measured, and the judgement that he incurrs, his personal judgment that he can never avoid, is of the utmost importance to himself — Merkwurdichliebe

I don't think you answered the question. What is being judged, the person or the act?

I'm not saying all nonbelievers try to get away with shit, I'm saying if one does get away with shit, there will be no greater consequences for him. If getting away with something is thought to be the right thing to do, and it is done, then it does not matter the slightest if it harms another. Of course, if the perpetrator gets caught, then it probably won't seem so right to him anymore. Hence the relativism of morality for the nonbeliever. — Merkwurdichliebe

Ouch, ouch that thought hurts! Our own limited consciousness is not the whole of reality! If we do wrong, the harm is done if we know about it or not and sooner of later the wrong will be our problem or children's children's problem (Socrates). Slavery is a good example of that rule. Some people were so sure a God gave them the right to own slaves that they fought a war to protect their right to own slaves. And boy do we have a problem today!

Lying is another example. Most of us get away with a lie or two, but this destroys trust, and once trust is destroyed, a lot more goes wrong. Or worse a person's lies can result in the deaths of millions of people. Our wrongs affect others and can even impact life in a big way. How many people died because the tobbacco industry lied? What is the affect of the oil industry lying about the consequences of extracting and burning oil? A limited consciousness that leaves a person to believe s/he can away with lying is a terrible thing.

You said well in case the end purpose of one's existence is to serve life in the world as all other non-human living things are created for this same purpose while they are guided by their natural instincts (the preprogramed instructions which are embedded in them by the Creator).

You may wonder now what end purpose could be... other than the one of serving life.
Answering this question is not easy because it depends on one's nature of which he is created.

As a man of reason and science, I am sure that life on earth or elsewhere cannot exist forever, much like our mortal living bodies. So, if the main/crucial reason for which life on earth was created is just to let it progress (move humanity to a greater consciousness), it will result to 'nothing' at the end of times as if the Creator decided to play a game then shut it off... to start another one perhaps :)

I can't go on without talking off topic. It is better to explore, on a separate thread, what the other end purpose could be. — KerimF

Kahill Gibran says we speak when we are not at ease with our thoughts, and I feel uneasy with what you said. I do not believe in a designer of our existence. Saying our purpose is thinking is because that is what we do, and a bird flies and a horse runs. But my understanding of this is more quantum physics than a religion beginning with a designer. It happens by chance and fills a nitch that isn't already full, or that which is in that nitch can not win the competion for a place in life and becomes extinct. It is after the fact that we can see purpose. While horses proved to be very useful to humans, I don't think they are a neccessary part of life and domestic animals are more the creation of humans than a god. Unfortunately humans can destroy life on this planet and I don't think a God is in control but the rules of universe do control cause and effect. Humans are capable of understanding the rules and can increase or destroy life or change things to suit the human pupose. For sure we are not made of mud and we did not begin in an Eden.

As for our finite reality. I have heard some ancients believed the day would come when there is more life on earth than what the earth can support. I am not sure the planet will survive us as anything but another sterile rock floating in space. However, I am not sure about conscious and other dimemsions.

So I think the only thing the powerless ordinary good persons, anywhere on earth, can do is to wish each other be safe (as you did already). — KerimF

I think the unpleasant problem of which you speak is what democracy is about. We all have a voice. Granted no one is going to pay much attention to me so I have nothing like the power of Trump, but enough ants can eat an elephant. I am planting seeds of thought and I will not be remembered but some of those seeds of thought may sprout and grow and reproduce. That is democracy, rule by reason, not rule by authority over the people.

It is the purpose of humans to think and they will manifest what they think about. It is our duty to the universe to think and speak and move humanity to a greater concsiousness, if we are recognized as a person of authority and power or not. We are part of something much bigger than ourselves.

Chardin said God is asleep in rocks and minerals, waking in plants and animals, to know self in man. This is not a miracle working God with supernatural powers tending to human affairs, blessing some and punishing others. It is universal law and our growing consciousness of it, which in turn manisfest it on earth. We are all a part of this and as we have seen, a powerless child or a powerless Black man can become an international voice for what is good when the time is right.

For someone that believes in God (a believer), there is an eternal structure to existence (sometimes referred to as essences) — Merkwurdichliebe

Does it matter which notion of God a person finds believable? How about logos and science, does that work? I think logos comes with abolute truth, but there is no holy book for it.

There is another type of believer who believes that God relates to each individual on a personal level, and in that capacity stands as judge for each individual. — Merkwurdichliebe

What if a person is not a believer in a humanized God such as Zeus or the God of Abraham? Might this person also have principles and be virtuous?

If the believer desires to think and act rightly, he will base his decisions on principle — Merkwurdichliebe

Does democracy, reasoning, and science work as the base for decisions on principle?

Any morality can be rationalized and justified, hence the nonbeliever only has access to relative morality. — Merkwurdichliebe

I hold a moral is a matter of cause and effect, so it is not exactly up to the individual alone. Our judgment must include the effect of what we say or do and the more expanded our consciousness is the better our judgment will be. Our consideration of right and wrong, need include everyone's understanding of it, not just our own.

thinking or acting only become morally relevant under inspection — Merkwurdichliebe

That is a lovely thought. Therefore, blindly following Hitler would not be moral because blindly obeying authority does involve thinking about it. People, who obey without thought, are being reactionary and may do horribly immoral things, even if they believe it is the will of God, right?

Whatever the nonbeliever can get away with is fair game. — Merkwurdichliebe

Not true at all, because if the action is not right the effect will be harmful. That is how we determine if something is right or wrong by the effect, and sacrificing animals, offering the gods human hearts, rituals and prayers will not change the effect of what we have done.

This is to say: no two individuals ever receive fair or equitable judgment...completely rendering "justice" into a relativistic notion. — Merkwurdichliebe

I have a problem with that notion! The consequences of our actions will be the same no matter who takes the action. Hum, are we judging the action or the person taking the action?

Reading what you said, I thought of primates and social animals in general. The group decides the rules and one's position in the group depends on the rules.

When it comes to choosing a belief system, I will put my faith in science and have absolutely no desire to go back in time before there was sceince. It is mind blowing to me how anyone could know history and put religion above science. Not all science is exactly materialistic. Quantum physics is more about energy and uncertainity. For sure it is better to have doubt than to be too sure of what one believes and science is always open to be proven wrong, whereas religion has to be God's truth. Like human beings are capable of knowing God's trurth? How? By reading a book written by people long before science? That truth did nothing to extend our lives and bring us to a reality where it is very unusual for a child to die before the parent dies. We invest a lot in our children believing they will out live us but that was not always so. Too much necessary information got left out of the Bible.

↪Athena
But how do you know for sure what the word of God is? — frank

Personally I do not believe a God has spoken with people and if he did they would not understand him any more than back in the day people could have understood Einstein and the theory of relativity. I think anyone knowing the word of God is no more than wishful thinking. My opinion is based in part on reading of many primitive ideas of a god and being chosen people. What is for sure is if a person succeeds with a god story and convinces people he is god's special messenger, most people will believe whatever this person says, is the word of god. The point is people pay attention when they believe something comes from a god, but if it is just a human talking, why would anyone pay attention?

What humans say is capricious. It may sound good today but not tomorrow. It is much harder to lead people into a war if only a human says this is necessary. However, if they are convinced going to war is the will of God, they will do their very best to do the will of God.

Science is working on resurrecting the dead. This google page might be of interest?

https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Annex-E-FY-2019-Contributions-to-IOs-All-Sources-Totals-003810-508.pdf

However, in the case of Jesus, if he was actually crucified, his apparent death could have been staged. I have read drugs that make people appear dead were known and that he was given such a drug. The timing of the crusification would have been crucial to saving his life because the bodies had to be taken down before the Sabbath.

Why would basing morality on principle be quite irrational without God? — frank

How is a principle determined? If it is the word of God then that is a for sure the right thing. If it is just what an individual thinks, how can we be sure it is the right thought?

In a word, the need is meaning and people best find this for themselves. The necessary cultural shift would be towards the pursuit of meaning rather than materialistic goals and tribal solidarity. — praxis

So how does a person go about finding meaning? We just meditate or what?

To be moral, you don't have to be anything, except moral, — Harry Hindu

I disagree. To be moral a person must be well informed. A moral is a matter of cause and effect and a person who does not understand cause and effect can not make a moral choice. We used to read folk tales that are moral stories to children and then ask them what is the moral of the story. The answer is a matter of cause and effect.

Religion unfortunately has not prepared anyone to know God (Logos, universal law) nor to make choice choices. It came about before science and the mythology is not compatable with science, resulting in obeying religious books, but not making morally correct decisions. For example Jesus told us not to worry about washing hands, and boy was that misinformation!

We have a choice. We can follow 3 simple rules and reduce the spread of the virus and go about our lives almost as normal, or we can ignore the rules and increase the spread of the virus and then deal with lockdowns because there is not enough room in our jails to isolate those who do not follow the rules from those of us who do. I have a strong preference for everyone following the rules that will make this period of time a lot less painful and give me my liberty to be with family and other people important to me. We were so close to a return to normal and the college kids returned to town and ruined everything.

In my book, people who are not considerate of others are not good people.

Good moral judgment is essential. How do people gain good moral judgment?

I'll break up this little shindig and say that I've come to think the solution lies in an analysis of the past, giving objectivity a cogent historical dimension. I think this is what can disrupt the toxic inclination of instrumentalist culture to neglect its influence upon human nature. The deconstructionists were probably pioneers in this regard, but the analyticity of it all got diluted by wishywashy extreme relativism arising from unphilosophical science, as in history from my distinct personal perspective as a b.s. elective, unintegrated with an accounting of technical causality. Some great books about the history of science have come out recently that describe its social context, and that I think is the best approach, factually showing the motivational dynamics associated with modern knowledge's development and how actualizing responsible humanism and paradigmal consciousness-raising can be, a kind of positivistic cultural narrative. — Enrique

You made an excellent point. I am really blown away by how differently history is being presented today compared to 60 years ago. Now, this has to lead to a new age precisely for the reason you say. This is such a dramatic change in consciousness, if nothing else changed, the new way of presenting history would lead to a New Age.

A public boarding channel keeps telling us knowledge of African American history is knowledge of America's history. What?! To say our history is about those who were slaves or those who came from Irland and those who were pioneers or those who labored in the mines and put their lives on the line to get better wages and working conditions is shocking to those of us who grew up HIS-STORY.

This change in consciousness is a long time coming. I remember my father explaining to me, the top person is the one who is given the credit for what is done, and my little child mind struggling with that concept and a strong sense of injustice. I was thinking when it takes 50 people to achieve something all of them should be acknowledged for what was achieved. Until recently I thought I was the only one thinking like that. I am very excited about that is now how we are telling history as the effort of everyone. That thinking goes with Social Security, food stamps, everyone getting $1200 to support the economy. Today's reality is a new age but I think some have not lived long enough to be aware of dramatic changes.

And those who appear to be arguing against the notion of a New Age seem to me too young to remember when life was different. And that is another huge change! Never in the history of man have so many people lived so long and with the technology of the internet been able to do so much as today's living fossils of history. We change so much as we age and that there are so many of us old fossils still living and voting and communicating is a strong changing force.

European anti-racist movement, which has existed for a long time, is not the same as the North American one. For example, to a semi-slaved worker in the fields of Almeria, the problem of police violence seems secondary and she does not see that her struggle can be the same. She doesn't care much about the fact that statues of slave traders are being knocked down.
The Black Lives Matter movement has been a mere media product in Europe that has brought about a flash on other forms of racism and will not have much impact on the real battle being waged by European anti-racist organizations. Incidentally, I am sorry to be pessimistic, but these organizations are not at their best at present. Neither with BLM nor without BLM. We should examine why this is the case.

If I mention it, it is because you mentioned it as an indicator of progress towards the enlightenment. For the reasons I just explained, it is not. — David Mo

Why of course that racism is natural and nothing has changed in a thousand years, except today when a police office kneels a man's neck, the whole world can watch it happening as it happens and if people are bombed in another country we know about it. This is nothing new compared to the beginning of the 21 century right? Technology hasn't changed our lives that much, right? I mean we can compare today with 1900 and see we are not at all in a new age.

The term "Age of Enlightenment" is usually applied by historians to an era in 17th & 18th centuries, that was sparked by the re-discovery of Greek Rationalism, and spread by the new technology of the printing press. Its early stages were marked by a formalization of the empirical scientific method, and later by the emergence of Individualism & Humanism, as a philosophical reaction to the intellectual suffocation imposed by the Collectivism and Spiritualism of the dominant Christian Church of the Dark Ages.

But a "New Age of Enlightenment" emerged in the 19th & 20th centuries as a reaction to the dominance of Modern Scientism and Secularism. The New Age movement was a return to Collectivism (communes) and Spiritualism (Buddhism, Hinduism, Theosophy). It also expressed a distaste for Rationalism & Empiricism & Objectivism & Modernism. Unfortunately, like the return of Christ, the prophesied Age of Aquarius (peace & love) never occurred, and many old hippies became pot-smoking suburbanites.

These different interpretations of "Enlightenment" seem to be recurring examples of Hegel's historical Dialectic, in which a once dominant worldview is challenged, and sometimes replaced, by a new opposing paradigm. Yet eventually, some of the key ideas of the previous "enlightenment" are retained in the subsequent "synthetic" worldview. Many people now claim to be "spiritual but not religious", and even "back to nature" types have made accommodations for the technological fruits of Modern Science. So, you could say that the world of human culture is progressing by erratic (zig-zag) stages of enlightenment toward a more flourishing and moral future.

However, at this moment in time, there is a new burgeoning movement called the "Enlightenment Project", which is a counter-attack on the anti-Science and anti-Reason worldviews, not so much of old hippies, but of old Republicans. And so it goes, on & on. Enlightenment is not a specific age or sudden inspiration, but the evolving learning process of humanity. :smile: — Gnomon

Nicely said. However, don't you think the mentality of abundance has made a big difference! I mean a really big difference! In Oregon, no one will starve to death because any low income person can get food stamps and we now talk about people feeling entitled. I really think that is different from how people thought before the economic achievements following the second world war. No one would have ever thought to give every adult $1200 to spend and support the economy 80 years ago. In our past, people starved to death, and not until Roosevelt did the federal government begin to take responsibility for something like that. We are experiencing a very different reality and I will stand on the idea that is a New Age and we are just beginning to adjust to the ability to feed everyone, educate everyone, provide medical care for everyone. Whoops the US is behind on the medical care, but we are getting closer to a new reality. A really, really new reality.

Education for technology is not education for wisdom. A liberal education serves wisdom much better. Since we replaced liberal education with education for technology, our reality is as Zeus feared it would be when man as given the technology of fire. We are now technological smart but lack the wisdom to use it well.

Exactly how does wisdom develop in a society focused on technology but not wisdom?

We can wait ten years to see, if you like. In the meantime, I think "the whole world" is a bold statement.There have been bigger movements against racism in the past ("I have a dream", you know) that ended up in superficial changes of a situation that remains basically the same. Racism is a system of discrimination and violence against a race. Social discrimination continues. And violence against black men (and other discriminated races) has been passed on to the police from the branches of trees. And pandemics strikes according to skin color.

As you know, progress is one of the key ideas of the Enlightenment. Progress in the material and in the moral. But it's a difficult concept to measure. Steven Pinker published an acclaimed book on the subject that is the most subtly biased I've read in recent times. His indicators were geared to score in only one direction.
I believe that the evolution of morality, for example, cannot be measured because traditional state violence has disappeared from the map... while it has been replaced by new forms of violence against people. For example, current states are less violent in the display of violence in justice, but more violent in the spread of everyday micro-violence. In a sense, it can be said that the practice is directed towards externalizing violence.That is to say, to make violence be exercised among the subjects of sovereignty, while the latter is limited to controlling the rules of the game. Is that progress? For Pinker it is. It seems to me to be a myopic point of view. — David Mo

My understanding of the rest of the world's interest in what happens in the US is based on news from other countries that I did not have in the 60's. So maybe the rest of the world was reacting as strongly to Martin Luther King and the whole civil rights movement, as it is reacting to our racism today, but we were just less informed than we are today? However, I doubt that. I think what is happening today is different. Except the US was pressed to end segregation because of the communist reaction to it. The USSR could use our racism to convince other countries that our democracy was not that good and what the USSR had to offer was better. But people in Britain were not tearing down statues of men who profited from slavery and Africa was not questioning the good of western civilization as it is now. Or if Africa was questioning the good or evil of western imperialism, it didn't matter because the whole of Africa was too weak to have any political significance.

But all those considerations may have nothing to do with this thread because the enlightenment is like Christianity or any other religion. It must be taught or it does not become a part of our consciousness. The democracy of the US transmitted a culture through liberal education. That culture was based on literacy in Greek and Roman classics and a focus on preparing everyone for independent thinking, and that ended with the passing of the 1958 National Defense Education Act. Since then German philosophers replaced the Greek and Roman philosophers, and training for independent thinking has been replaced with "group think".

The US has experienced dramatic culture change since it began educating for a technological society with unknown values. The new culture is no longer based on the Greek and Roman classics that gave us the enlightenment.

One thing everyone ought to keep in mind is that...

...at some point 1200 to 1400 years ago, a scholar said to a student a version of, "Now that we have access to so much science and philosophy, we should consider ourselves to be enlightened."

They weren't...or at least, they were MUCH less enlightened than they supposed.

More than likely, that's where we are, too.

If all the knowledge that could possibly be were a yardstick...we might be at a point one atom onto the stick.

Could be! — Frank Apisa

I agree with the fact that expectations of what technology can not do us were unrealistic. On the other hand, I also know before the second world war few labors owned their own homes, and few people thought they would ever earn enough to have to pay taxes, and since then the middle class has grown a lot and most people pay taxes. However, the economic crashes we experienced since then have ruined the progress we have made. Before Roosevelt and today, it is the top 1% who own and control most of the land and wealth. On the other hand, there is an amazing awareness of what has happened and the injustice of it. Especially the injustice laws and policies that prevented people of color from gaining the benefits of owning property is something many of us were unaware of.

For the first time in human history we are working with the mentality of abundance, and believe it is possible we can do even better. While more and more people are losing everything because of the pandemic. Awareness of social and economic injustice is spreading like a summer fire. At the very least I expect this pandemic to lead to universal medicine. People fight much harder to keep what the had, they do to get something they never had and didn't expect to have, no matter how hard they worked nor how many hours they worked. The reality people accepted before Roosevelt is no longer an acceptable reality.

I do not know what wonderful country you are talking about that in 1958 had no problems with religion and was liberal in its education system. Where I know the influence of religious intransigence and authoritarian education were two serious problems for a real Enlightenment as much or more than now. What country are you talking about?

I also don't see any foreseeable developments in human behavior due to the pandemic. Neither intellectually nor morally. Quite the opposite: individualism that is indifferent to death o the others is still on the rise and the destruction of the Earth is advancing by leaps and bounds. Social inequalities have also become more evident without anyone lifting a finger to resolve them in the future. What reasons do we have to hope for a rational, communitarian and democratic New Age? I see none. — David Mo

I don't what planet you are talking about but I do know you over-exaggerated what I said, to make your argument. That distorts what I said.

Nothing I say will give you the ability to see something you do not want to see, but we can wait 10 years and then determine if things have radically changed or not. I do believe the whole world getting behind Black Lives Matter and intolerance of the confederate flag and statues of men who profited from slavery in Britain and the US is a change that many of us had not expected.

I thought other social animals were mentioned but my memory isn't that good and drops details.

"a lion's "morality" doesn't have a cognitive basis and is probably hard-wired in its genes" I like the way you worded that. We can think about what we think and I don't think other animals can do that. There are some cross-species relations that would be totally unexpected but it is not the norm. I also don't think that is really important, but knowing what causes global warming and knowing the growing water problem, and continuing what we are doing, as though our planet had infinite resources and God will protect us from harm, is insanely immoral.

I think intelligent people in high places have extremely poor judgment because they are not using the information they need to know before making the decision. Shaming low-income people and repeatedly saying they don't want to work and inferring they could get a job if they really wanted to, no matter how bad the economy is, is cruel and not based on necessary information. Some people in high places hold very negative beliefs because they do not understand the reality of low-income people. Over and over again, people believe they are more deserving than "those people". That is way too wordy- I should fall back on Socrates and his concern that we must expand conscience before we can have good judgment.

I think those living during the Roosevelt years and long before most of us gained the mentality of abundance, had better reasoning. In the past, far more was done to assure people could own their own homes. Owning a home was seen as essential to good citizenship and a belief in capitalism. I think socialism has become more popular because of the high divorce rate when it takes two incomes to support a family, and repeated economic collapses and the cost of housing spiraling out of control. And we do not fully grasp democracy is awesome because it is a collective consciousness, not the elite controlling with policies made for "those people".

I'm curious what you guys think of this idea: almost everyone in the Western world is essentially enlightened or capable of grasping the core facets of an enlightened mindset due to pervasive infusion of basic science and history into the educational system along with the centrality of technological thinking in broader culture. Nearly everyone has access to resources which train citizens for reasoning analytically at a high enough level that ideological discernments are a cinch and intellectual self-control strong if so desired, with the majority of the population easily seeing through any form of rhetorical b.s. via reflection. But a way has not been found to make this personal capacity for insight workable in traditional institutions, leading to disillusionment in the context of practical decision making, corrupting the modern world's optimism and leading towards exploitative nihilism or reversion to mob mentality in public life. Is this generally accurate? — Enrique

I would say Christianity and education for technology cancel out any benefit of the enlightenment because there is not much consciousness of the reasoning of the enlightenment. Before 1958 education supported what you said and Christianity was not the problem it is today. Christianity is a problem because the mythology has serious problems and too many people believe that mythology instead of science. On the other hand....

Education for technology has lead to the research we need for better judgment. If we returned to liberal education and an understanding of what morals have to do with democracy and reason, we could realize a New Age that is better than our past.

Also, I think the economic collapse caused by this pandemic will force rethinking economics and creating a new system of exchange that more justly meets human needs. A breakthrough in energy would also be an incredible advancement for humanity.

I believe the potential reality of the New Age, a time of peace and high tech, and the end of tyranny. A future so different from our past, those in the New Age will not be able to relate to the past. It is that change in consciousness that truly makes it a New Age.