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?

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.

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. — Athena

Religion is a vague idea. It seems to be predominantly defined through the nonbelievers examination of antiquated paradigms, many of which command massive followings. Of course, this does not add any clarity to what in the hell religion actually is. The are myriad paradigms for belief, and the so called systems which are commonly identified as religion have irreconcilable disparities in their doctrines. So what is that common thing that makes something religious, and another thing not religious? It is the capacity for doubt in the believer; that is, if a person does not test his belief with a necessary measure of doubt and examine it through an established criterion in order to determine its viability as actual knowledge, then that belief can be said to be religious.

In religion, the essential component is the individual believer's personal belief. As soon as one begins to relate his belief to another person, or to compare it with other beliefs, he is departing the religious and entering upon aesthetic matters. Religious belief that is made external to the believer (including all doctrine), is more art and poetry than science or knowledge. Of course art and poetry have a power that elludes scientific understanding - this is the way in which art speaks personally to the individual spectator, and leaves a unique and meaningful imprint upon his psyche.

Now, to answer you question, I don't think it matters which notion is believed, there is no reason why a person's beliief in science, logos &c. cannot be religious in the same way a person's belief in Jesus or Allah is. And there is no requirement in religion to draw one's belief from a doctrine.

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? — Athena

Yes, principles are rationally justified for any believer whose belief is religious in nature. The key is that religious belief is a conviction, impossible to change by any other notion or reasoning. This is to say, religious belief is self sustaining and absolute, the rules are set and moral principle is rationally justified to say the least

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. — Athena

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.

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

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.

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. — Athena

For the nonbeliever, this does not hold because he lacks the requisite level of dogmatism. The nonbeliever needs proof, and the proof can only be acquired after the fact. This is because the belief of the nonbeliever is only based in factual knowledge. In a world where factual knowledge determines what should or should not be believed, we are left with a high degree of uncertainty --- all knowledge becomes merely an approximation of actual truth, and the ability to predict the outcome of a decision is a matter of probability at best.

Our consideration of right and wrong, need include everyone's understanding of it, not just our own.

I disagree. For a person who bases his morality on principle, it must be universal. If we include everyone's understanding of morality as relevant, we are left with relativistic morality, and principled morality becomes irrational.

Furthermore, the believer is being judged for his morality at each and every moment of decisiveness, whereas the nonbeliever is only being judged when under inspection by a relevant authority. So for the believer, his ethical existence is much more important to himself at a critically personal level, because in the end, no matter what anyone does, he is responsible for himself.

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? — Athena

Yes, a believer may be reactionary, and may do horribly immoral things because he believes it is the will of god, but to him it would be the right thing to do, and there would be no question about it - this would be an example of the teleological suspension of the ethical. Without this teleological suspension, to behave immorally as such would be self-condemnation for the believer.

But, the nonbeliever may also be reactionary, and may do horribly immoral things because he thinks it is the right thing based on what he knows. He may think it is the right thing to do at the time, and later come to realize that it was the wrong thing to do, or maybe not. It really doesn't matter either way, right and wrong are fluid, and simply a matter of perception. Ultimately, all that matter is how other people (especially others with authority) percieve one's ethical decisions. The Nazi's thought they were doing the right thing, and none of it was compelled by a belief in God.

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. — Athena

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.

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? — Athena

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.

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.

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.

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?

So what is that common thing that makes something religious, and another thing not religious? — Merkwurdichliebe

Well, words have whatever meaning we assign them. But, to address your question, as a start I would offer that religion is about our relationship with reality, whereas other methodologies such as science concern themselves with facts about reality.

Your answer to your question was...

It is the capacity for doubt in the believer; that is, if a person does not test his belief with a necessary measure of doubt and examine it through an established criterion in order to determine its viability as actual knowledge, then that belief can be said to be religious. — Merkwurdichliebe

First, discussion of religion can be greatly improved on philosophy forums if we can get past the extremely common assumption that religion is almost exclusively about belief, ideological assertions.

Next, it seems to me that, generally speaking, there is considerable more acceptance of doubt in religious communities than is typically demonstrated by atheists and philosophers.

A reminder, all religious people are not fundamentalist Baptists or Jehovah's Witnesses.

As one example, the Catholic saint Mother Teresa spoke honestly about the deep doubts that she experienced. I don't see that happening too often with atheist philosophers.

BTW, in case it matters, I'm not religious.

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.

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!

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.

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.

Can I weigh in here? — Athena

Of course!

Religion is based on mythology not facts that have been validated — Athena

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.

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.

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. — Athena

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.

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

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! — Athena

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

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

Well, I witnessed certain years in which the flu killed in my country not less than 1 of 100 while about half the population (50%) were affected by it. But, in these years, no system/organization, local or abroad, saw it even an epidemic. — KerimF

This is not a good thing.

Saying that your country's response to a different virus was poor is not an argument in favour of your government acting poorly on Covid.

What you miss in this analysis is that the religious person still has to choose. They are not in a different position to the non-religious in that regard. So if the choice of a non-believer is in some way arbitrary, so is the choice of the believer.

You cannot avoid responsibility for your moral choices by blaming god.

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

Why isn't this equally true of the believer? They also have a choice, to believe or no. But in their case they pretend that they hand the responsibility over to someone else.

The argument you present here reeks of special pleading.