Pffft. We're in this because we pursue certainty.

No.

Mere projection. Foolery likes company. :roll:

We're in this because we pursue certainty. — baker

That's curious. I think I am looking for new experiences in the form of ideas.

Krishnamurti said something about the quest for certainty being the start of servitude or bondage.

http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/euthyfro.html

Worth the read. — Banno

The Hare Krishnas would call this an example of the predicament inherent in demigod worship (a demigod is not omnimax, hence a number of problems emerge from worshipping a demigod).

Says he, assured of his certainty.

Don't play coy. Certainty rocks!

And Dewey refers to certainties (e.g. permanence, essence) as instances of "the philosophical fallacy" in Nature and Experience.

On the contrary, I'm a fallibilist and expect any purportedly true statement to be, in fact, untrue – provided there's evidence to show that is the case.

And Dewey refers certainties (e.g. permanence, essence) as instances of "the philosophical fallacy" in Nature and Experience. — 180 Proof

Quick digression - if I were to pursue either Dewey or Peirce (or James) who would you recommend? This is for usefulness, not historical interest. Susan Haack interests me too.

I don't accept the premise of the OP. It is not only possible to conceive of morality without reference to religion, the religious who claim to be moral are merely pretending to the same moral values as the atheists and humanists. — James Riley

What? They are pretending to the morals of humanists? Really? Humanists and the religious disagree on so many things, so vehemently. While it appears that morality precedes religion according to some anthropologists, and people are likely to discard religious commands that go against their moral intuitions, the religious have very different values than most humanists.

Religion, even if it arose simultaneously, was not the source of, nor did it precede morality. It just claimed it, as it always does. — James Riley

I agree with this; religion, by the very nature of the - apparently - undesirable certainty it breeds, must be the only game in town.

Religion is just copying morality, and is not the source of it. — James Riley

Religion, even if it arose simultaneously, was not the source of, nor did it precede morality. It just claimed it, as it always does. — James Riley

It is important to remember that many people actually believe that moral actions are obligatory merely because god commands us to do them. According to these people, god really is the source of morality, and they will often times not tolerate any challenges to his authority, or even accept one of the two horns of this dilemma. If god exists and commands us to do moral acts, then humanists are actually incorrect. But then again, there is no reason to believe god exists.

It seems to me that religion is mostly a means of regulating behavior, of codifying mostly intuitive moral principles, whereas humanism is about moral reasoning given a few axioms, such as unnecessary suffering being wrong. In fact, that is a good difference between many humanists and the religious: many of the religious believe it is okay for us to suffer - god just works in mysterious ways. But I have never seen, for instance, a humanist make a claim that torture for no reason is okay (or really that torture is okay at all). Like I said earlier, there are fundamental differences between the humanist and religious worldviews.

On the contrary, I'm a fallibilist and expect any purportedly true statement to be, in fact, untrue – provided there's evidence to show that is the case. — 180 Proof

As long as you consider yourself the arbiter of this evidence, your game is certainty.

Haack, then back into Peirce. Karl Popper. And Dewey if your still interested by then. I never had much use for James (though he's quite the writer like his brother Henry who I do not enjoy as much as William).

Appreciated.

Unless God's command conflicts with the rights of other people. Then it's not so clear this argument from authority is valid.

The idea that something is moral or immoral was indigenous to man
— James Riley

How do you know that? — baker

Because morality is nothing more than consideration of what animals have. Animals know good/bad. We just happen to consider it. It didn't take religion to reduce good/bad to consideration. The idea that contemporary non-religious people came to their morality on the coat tails of religion is just religion trying to appropriate a good thing: consideration. A thing deemed good by most. Anything good will fall victim to this.

Another distinction should be drawn in this thread, and that's the one between religion and spirituality. Most folks think of religion as an organized institution among people, or socialized spirituality. The first rock art in a cave somewhere will get the religious pointing and saying "Yeah, that's good, that's us, that's god moving through us." The artist is like "WTF are you talking about?"

What? They are pretending to the morals of humanists? Really? Humanists and the religious disagree on so many things, so vehemently. While it appears that morality precedes religion according to some anthropologists, and people are likely to discard religious commands that go against their moral intuitions, the religious have very different values than most humanists. — ToothyMaw

There is something in me that defaults to an assumption that someone is disagreeing with me when they respond to my posts. But search as I might, I don't think you are disagreeing with me. My post was really just saying religion did not come first and it does not have a monopoly on good.

Disagreement on what is good and what is bad does not prevent religion from claiming as it's own that which it, subjectively, deems to be good. There are interreligious disagreements that are greater than the disagreements between the humanist and the religious.

What the humanist, or the atheist should always do is refuse to allow religion to abscond with the consideration of what is good. Just as Americans should never let some Americans make them feel un-American, or like the flag is not theirs, or like they "don't support the troops" if they question the morality of a war, or a thousand other stupid Republican wedges.

Religion can be bad even if it thinks it is good.

Like I said earlier, there are fundamental differences between the humanist and religious worldviews. — ToothyMaw

Indeed there are. "Next to the atrocity of the demagogues, the stupidity of the moralist, or their total absence, is the chief cause of the division that today afflicts the human community. There is greater confusion than ever with regard to the norms which ought to govern the relations between men, to say nothing of those which could orient and regulate our treatment of the other realities present in our environment: the mineral, the vegetable, and the animal." J.O. yGasset

. First of all ... I think ... you need to understand ... that ...What does it mean to Be Moral? What is Morality?

. By morality they mean that you have to be truthful, you have to be honest, you have to be charitable, you have to be compassionate, you have to be nonviolent. In one word, all these great values have first to be present in you, only then you can move towards being religious.

. This whole concept is upside down. According to me, unless you are religious you cannot be moral.

. Religion comes first, morality is only a by-product. If you make the by-product into the goal of human character, you will create such a troubled, miserable humanity – and for such a good cause. You are bringing the cart before the bullocks – neither the bullocks can move, nor the cart can move; both are stuck.

. How can a man be truthful if he does not know what truth is? How can a man be honest if he does not know even who he is? How can a man be compassionate if he does not know the source of love within himself? From where will he get the compassion? All that he can do in the name of morality is to become a hypocrite, a pretender. And there is nothing more ugly than to be a hypocrite. He can pretend, he can try hard, but everything will remain superficial and skin-deep. Just scratch him a little bit, and you will find all the animal instincts fully alive, ready to take revenge whenever they can get the opportunity.

. Putting morality before religion is one of the greatest crimes that religions have committed against humanity.

. The very idea brings a repressed human being. And a repressed human being is sick, psychologically split, constantly in a fight with himself, trying to do things which he does not want to do.

. Morality should be very relaxed and easy – just like your shadow; you don’t have to drag it with you, it simply comes on its own. But this has not happened; what has happened is a psychologically sick humanity. Everybody is tense, because whatever you are doing there is a conflict about whether it is right or wrong. Your nature goes in one direction; your conditioning goes just in the opposite direction, and a house divided cannot stand for long. So everybody is somehow pulling himself together; otherwise the danger is always there, just by your side, of having a nervous breakdown.

. Morality should not be taught at all. Morality should come on its own accord. I teach you directly the experience of your own being. As you become more and more silent, serene, calm and quiet, as you start understanding you own consciousness, as your inner being becomes more and more centered, your actions will reflect morality. It will not be something that you decide to do; it will be something as natural as roses on a rose bush. It is not that the rose bush is doing great austerities, and fasting, and praying to God, and disciplining itself according to the Ten Commandments; the rose bush is doing nothing. The rose bush has just to be healthy, nourished, and the flowers will come in their own time, with great beauty, effortlessly.

. A morality that comes with effort is immoral. A morality that comes without effort is the only morality there is.

. That’s why one cannot talk about morality at all, because it is morality that has created so many problems for humanity – about everything. They have given you ready-made ideas about what is right, what is wrong. In life, ready-made ideas don’t work, because life goes on changing, just like a river – taking new turns, moving into new territories… from the mountains to the valleys, from the valleys to the plains, from the plains to the ocean.

. Heraclitus is right when he says, “You cannot step in the same river twice,” because it is always flowing. The second time you step in, it is different water. I agree with Heraclitus so much that I say unto you, you cannot step in the same river even once – because when your feet are touching its surface, the water underneath is flowing; as your feet are going deeper, the water on the surface is flowing; and by the time you have touched the bottom, so much water has gone… it is not the same water, that your step can not be said to be entering into the same river.

. Life is just like the river – a flux. And you are all carrying fixed dogmas. You always find yourself unfit, because if you follow your dogmas, you have to go against life; if you follow life, you have to go against your dogmas.

. Morality must be spontaneous. You should be conscious and alert, and respond to every situation with absolute consciousness. Then whatever you do is right. It is not a question of actions being right or wrong, it is a question of consciousness – whether you are doing it consciously or unconsciously like a robot.

. My whole philosophy is based on growing your consciousness higher, deeper, to the point when there is no unconsciousness inside you; you have become a pillar of light. In this light, in this clarity, to do anything wrong becomes impossible. It is not that you have to avoid doing it; even if you want to do it, you cannot. And in this consciousness, whatsoever you do becomes a blessing.

. Your action out of consciousness is moral, out of unconsciousness is immoral ... it may be the same action.

There is something in me that defaults to an assumption that someone is disagreeing with me when they respond to my posts. But search as I might, I don't think you are disagreeing with me. My post was really just saying religion did not come first and it does not have a monopoly on good. — James Riley

No, I definitely am disagreeing with you, but not over anything particularly important - just that religion doesn't really borrow from secular ethics all that much. Unless you would say that secular ethics would also be our first primitive attempt at morality? Apparently the origins of morality is more complicated than one might think, so I don't know if our first, primitive, moral beliefs were totally separate from religion.

The idea that something is moral or immoral was indigenous to man — James Riley

I mean, yeah, I guess, but whether or not it developed alongside religion is ambiguous. At the very least it seems to me religion was an attempt to codify our moral intuitions, so I wouldn't say that religion copies morality, but rather that religion depends on morality on a fundamental level - but not the other way around.

At the very least it seems to me religion was an attempt to codify our moral intuitions, — ToothyMaw

Yes.

so I wouldn't say that religion copies morality, — ToothyMaw

I would.

but rather that religion depends on morality on a fundamental level — ToothyMaw

Yes.

but not the other way around. — ToothyMaw

I agree.

I'm only speaking of "religion" as I understand the term. If philosophers are using it as some term-of-art that I'm not privy too, then maybe we are talking past each other. For me, it is beyond comprehension that religion came first. It's just an organized, cultish way of trying to explain mystery. But, like science, it followed curiosity and appreciation of the mystery; it didn't give rise to it. We had the moral intuitions first, and only became curious about the mystery of them later.

Morality should be referred to Happiness. Whatever makes you happy is moral! Morality can't be considered something that you should kill your Ego as to have it! And morality connection with religion and someone should try to like like "monk" as to be moral is one of the most important reasons that human societies are the way they are. Morality must have a Ego benefit as someone to be convinced to follow it. Especially those who don't believe in God. And that egoist motivation can only be Happiness. But imo as I have written before people have a catastrophic aspect of what Happiness means. They have totally connected with materials and idiot social stereotypes. If someone realizes for example that living a moral life is mostly a benefit for his happiness that has nothing to do with material then he would realize that it's for his own good to act like that. Moral would become a totally egoist thing to do! For example if I decide to fight my way through work or whatever without deceiving others but with my own power without asking for favors or trying to make others fail. Even if I will provable see others achieve in such sneaky ways and me be left behind (cause that's how usually goes unfortunately). I would be so proud of myself that have achieved everything with my own powers and proudly that this feeling of self respect would give me such satisfaction that no job promoting could give me! Cause the people who act in slutty ways deep inside them they feel the shame for their actions and with such shame noone can reach Happiness even if they act that they are. Anyway this was as an example to make my point clear. Morality should be redefined and not by religion rules but from Happiness rules! But as to do that humans should first redefine Happiness. That's my view at less though I know that it most probably will never happen

I'm asking whence the idea that it can or should be. Is this just rebellion against religion, or is there something else to it? — baker

It seems simple enough. Religious claims are epistemologically invalid to the atheist. If moral claims only originated in religion, they would be similarly invalid. If they are considered worth keeping (most atheists do), then the atheist must find another foundation for these claims.

For me, it is beyond comprehension that religion came first. It's just an organized, cultish way of trying to explain mystery. — James Riley

I actually think religion was probably the very first way of explaining reality and its mysteriousness; cavemen didn't have science or philosophy.

For me, it is beyond comprehension that religion came first. — James Riley

Well, religion, as we agree, depends upon morality, while morality can exist as a separate entity. But if religion developed alongside morality, then they would be codependent upon each other in a way that would be difficult to disentangle - even if, as stated earlier, morality can exist on its own.

And it seems entirely possible to me that religion and morality developed together - or at least affected each other. Can you give an argument as to why that isn't the case?

Whence the idea that morality can be conceived of without reference to religion?

I'm not asking whether morality can be justified without religion. I'm asking whence the idea that it can or should be. Is this just rebellion against religion, or is there something else to it? — baker

You can certainly conceive of different moral systems, and you can follow systems like utilitarianism which will likely be in tune with common moral intuitions some 90% of the time. The interest comes when these two schools differ, and the older I get the more I've come to believe that there are such things as absolute moral prohibitions that one must follow even if it leads to greater destruction than otherwise or one's own certain death. For instance, a community cannot surrender their old or their children to appease an evil enemy even if the enemy threatens more retribution otherwise. If evil is going to occur, "let them kill you, but do not cross the line" (this is an old rabbinic saying.)

Part of what grounds our dignity as human beings is moral duty/moral responsibility. When your encourage others to be docile to protect the greater whole we strip people of that moral responsibility, which in turn dehumanizes us. People are not numbers to be calculated.

And it seems entirely possible to me that religion and morality developed together - or at least affected each other. Can you give an argument as to why that isn't the case? — ToothyMaw

I believe animals have a sense of what is good and what is bad. Since we are animals, we too have that sense. If there is anything that separates us from other animals, it is that we consider what is good and what is bad. Consideration of what is good and what is bad is, or leads to, morality. I believe this occurred and occurs independent of, and not contemporaneous with, or after religion. Consideration itself is not a creation of religion. If consideration is a hallmark of philosophy, then cave men did indeed engage in it.

The problem we run into, as I have said before, is that religion has an insidious habit of claiming a moral high ground to which it is not entitled. Religion lays claim to that which it deems good and eschews that which it deems bad. So naturally it will say it came first, or at least contemporaneous with morality. It will say we can't live without religion. Of course it says that. It is a liar that must perpetuate itself.

Hell, the space we occupy, the air we breathe, the water we drink, the food we eat, the clothing we wear, taking care of the young, the wounded, the ill and the old, all these are good so they must be gifts of god. But all those things existed before and in spite of religion, as did the contemplation thereof.

It is only later, when someone asked "Why?" and another, who did not know the answer, but who felt knowing the answer was more important than the truth, decided to pull some shit out of his ass and said "Because god said so" that we have religion. The guy who said "I don't know, let us contemplate on it" was the first philosopher. I think he was a cave man. Anyone who contemplates without lying to themselves is a philosopher. But the morality, the contemplation of good/bad, was not a child of religion.

Indeed, and some religions criticize believers who obey religious laws out of fear of punishment or out of hope for a reward. — baker

A red herring I think. These religions that make such criticisms simply fail to recognize that fear of punishment and hope of reward are the basis for their beliefs as well.

I think the material universe is seen to be structured and to function in an ordered way. Even animals and plants exist and/or act according to certain rules or laws. When humans organize themselves as a community or society they generally follow a similar ordered structure that may be said to reflect the laws of the universe. As most people believe in a higher power behind the universe, it isn't unreasonable to say that law and order in human society is a manifestation or extension of the Law of God on earth. Taking the code of moral conduct prescribed by most religions to be the command of God has a psychological and moral function in that it inculcates in us the fact that those laws have a higher source that is above us as individuals and therefore are not to be transgressed.

We find that most religions have this concept of divine righteousness or justice: Ancient Egyptian (maat), Greek (dike), Roman (justitia), Jewish (tsedaqah), Hindu (dharma), etc.

Do you have some idea on how to both acknowledge the relativity and derivativity of moral systems, and yet have a sense of certainty about moral issues? — baker

Moral systems are installed in childhood as part of the civilizing project of raising children. (At least, one hopes moral systems are installed). Relativity and derivativity [nice word to say over and over] are adult problems which can safely be neglected--provided one maintains a civilized moral system.

Somewhere in adulthood one may take out one's tools and make (usually minor) adjustments in the installed moral system. In my case, it meant re-defining gay sex as good -- something that required some moral re-engineering. Later on came the matter of God himself and his alleged role in the universe. There was also shifting capitalism and free-enterprise into the "morally defective" column, out of the "inherently good" column. And so on and so forth.

Certainty? Despite tinkering, shifts, and re-engineering, the moral center holds. Why does it hold? Because it is natural (and encouraged) for humans to make rules and stick with them. What keeps us attached to rules? Guilt, for one. Guilt: the gift that keeps on giving. Then there are laws, courts, fines, and prisons if we get way out of line. Laws, courts, fines, and prisons are the expression of mass commitment to moral systems.

There is, of course, room for hypocrisy in all of this--quite a lot of room, quite a lot of hypocrisy. False representation is something that we are also good at, and will tolerate as long as it isn't too extreme, too brazen. Brazen hypocrisy might get one expelled from the country club, or publicly snubbed.

:100: Agreed.

In addition to guilt and punitive action, I would add reason. Sometimes the moral center makes sense to us, sui sponte, as reason enough on it's own two feet; and then there is the reasoning of others; an explanation of why it makes sense; a convincing that needs no god, no magic, no mystery.

:up: :up:

Unless God's command conflicts with the rights of other people. Then it's not so clear this argument from authority is valid. — Manuel

Not unless God is playing favorites. Pretty much every major monotheistic religion has a tenet to that effect: namely, that while God created everyone, he clearly prefers some people over others; he has his "chosen ones".

For me, it is beyond comprehension that religion came first. — James Riley

But for many people, this is exactly what happens: For a person born and raised into a religion, religion comes first.
Unless you can somehow show that morality is genetic?

We had the moral intuitions first, and only became curious about the mystery of them later. — James Riley

But does this hold for a person who was born and raised into a religion?

But for many people, this is exactly what happens: For a person born and raised into a religion, religion comes first. — baker

But does this hold for a person who was born and raised into a religion? — baker

Oh my goodness, I hope no one thinks that I think I'm going to convince a religious person of how wrong they are. I would never make so bold. You are absolutely correct, for them, the precedence of religion is exactly what happens, and the truth will never hold for them.

But just because they are wrong about something does not make them right about it.

I, myself, am a universal pantheist and, while my god is most likely different than their god, and while I agree god is the creator of our perception of good and bad and morality, there is no greater spread in the world than that which lies between god and religion. Religion is external to the heart of man, a manufacture of his brain, his cunning. God is in his heart and eschews religion.

"I had learned many English words and could recite part of the Ten Commandments. I knew how to sleep on a bed, pray to Jesus, comb my hair, eat with a knife and fork, and use a toilet. . . . I had also learned that a person thinks with his head instead of his heart." Sun Chief