isn’t that you have to agree with them (or me), Banno, but in your fullness of meaning in the absence of community (especially those communities feasting on putrifying deity), you can’t pretend as if your judgment (your aesthetic preference) is the necessary judgment. — Ennui Elucidator
I see all of philosophy in service to a purpose with no reason to invest in an idea beyond its utility. — Ennui Elucidator
Insisting that people use language the same in all contexts is amusing, but misguided. — Ennui Elucidator
In the end, facts are not about me, but about us. — Ennui Elucidator
If there is no God, everything is permitted.
— Dostoevsky
The quote above, taken as true, implies that without the facticity of God's existence, morality has no leg to stand on. In other words, religions - humanity's preliminary expeditions in the moral universe - have to be "factually correct" from beginning to end. — TheMadFool
And yet at my thread "what can replace God?" you were doubting that most people even nowadays get their morals from religions. — dimosthenis9
That's just monetary logic - you're merely buying your way into heaven with good deeds as the currency of choice. — TheMadFool
Exactly. And unfortunately it's what humanity still needs. What "works" better, for most people at least. Or else people wouldn't maintain so passionately religions till now. — dimosthenis9
With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil - that takes religion. — Steven Weingberg
With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil - that takes religion. — Steven Weingberg
Thanks alot! Between my fat fingers, and the bright sunlight on my screen, I guess I didn't know what I was doing for awhile there.I thought I might help you finish what you started. :grin: — TheMadFool
Well I don't agree with Mr. Steven on that at all. Being good or evil is a mater of personal choice at the end. And nothing else. If people use as an excuse religion to be good or evil that doesn't change that it is still a personal choice after all.
Religion isn't a magic pill that "transforms" good people into evil. — dimosthenis9
Religion has a role both in evil and good of course. And if you want to attribute evil in religions you have to attribute good also. If we wanna be fair.
But my point is that religion doesn't transform people from good to evil. It's always a personal choice what you will follow.
It is true that many people use religion as an "excuse" for being good or evil. But if someone chooses to follow evil (or good) he would use any other excuse also even if it wasn't religion. Some tragedy in his life, or anger for corrupted political system, or unhappy childhood etc etc. We can't take away the personal responsibility from each persons choices and just attribute it to religion. Blame "bad" religions for everything.
And at my thread if you remember I was strongly doubted that religions make more evil than good at the end. That people who probably use them as a "reason", "excuse" to act good are more than those who use them for evil. Maybe that's why is still necessary for our societies. Imo it's still the best "worse" moral glue for humanity.Considering the average low intellectual level of humans worldwide. — dimosthenis9
History is replete with instances of religiously-motivated atrocities. We could, with great effort of course, forgive such heinous acts (genocide and more) but then to also have to accept that it was divinely ordained is a tad too much, no? — TheMadFool
Yes it is too much indeed. And that's why you can never have a fruitful discussion with a fanatic (both sides fanatic, theists or atheists).
If a religion person denies these historical atrocities or excuses them saying it was "God's will" then you better turn your back and leave. Anything else would be a waste of time.
But then not all theists are like that. Some recognize them and realize how unjust these atrocities were. — dimosthenis9
To be fair, I feel both theism and atheism are, despite their antithetical relationship, partners insofar as ethics is the issue - they seem to work synergistically. Concordia discordis. — TheMadFool
With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil - that takes religion. — Steven Weingberg
Yes it is too much indeed. And that's why you can never have a fruitful discussion with a fanatic (both sides fanatic, theists or atheists). — dimosthenis9
kept in check only by our ability to concieve of right and wrong — Michael Zwingli
Or those people weren't particularly religious to begin with. Religions have cracks, and some people who were boon into religions, fall through those cracks.True but what made "some (religious folk) recognize them (atrocities) and realize how unjust these atrocities were"? Can't be religion itself - scriptures have remained exactly as they were for nearly 20000 years. Ergo, this moral growth has to be the work of secular/atheistic forces. — TheMadFool
Oh, the irony of using language for saying this.Insisting that people use language the same in all contexts is amusing, but misguided. — Ennui Elucidator
When you burn a pile of trash, do you feel sorry for doing so? Do you think you've done something bad? If someone asks you about it, will you indulge in their questions? No on all counts.Where you and the Christians differ is in the qualitative evaluation of some past events.
— baker
I don't think so. That the books were not transcribed, were thrown in the rubbish, and were burned is not a question of opinion. Again, 90% of the literature of the classical world disappeared over a few hundred years, at the instigation of Bishops, christianised emperors and their acolytes. We have the commands they gave. We have descriptions of their deed in their own words. And we have the hole in our literary heritage. — Banno
Would you speak openly, truthfully, in detail if you were questioned by someone whose authority you do not acknowledge? You probably wouldn't. Same with Christians. They consider it beneath their dignity to discuss themselves and their church with outsiders.What is at issue is not inherited guilt. It is an inherited denial of historical fact. It is an attitude that permits the churches to entrench the disenfranchising of women and to hide paedophilic predation. Should the destruction of indigenous lives and culture by Canadian residential schools also be whitewashed as saving souls? — Banno
Your theory would be fine, if only people wouldn't have such vastly differing ideas about what constitutes right and wrong. — baker
What if it is? I suggest that in the long run, the aim of "giving people moral guidance, thymos, and social cohesion" is well-served by promoting the value of truthfulness, and is impaired by promoting bullshit, lies, delusion, literal belief in fiction -- and generally speaking, a culture of unreasonableness.1. Dawkins focuses on the fact of Islam, or Christianity or any other religion being factually incorrect.But what if the goal of a religion is not to be factually correct, but to give people moral guidance, thumos and social cohesion? — stoicHoneyBadger
There's plenty of ways to make moral instruction appealing without asking people to believe "supernatural" fictions are literally true. If a) moral instruction, inspiration, and social cohesion can be effectively promoted by other means, and b) promoting unreasonable expectations and literal belief in fiction has negative consequences (e.g. for morality, thymos, and social cohesion), it would seem advisable to find another way to get the job done.2. Giving moral guidance in a form of only 10 commandments or 4 noble truth, etc. just printed on a page would not have much interest, so it need to be wrapped in an intriguing story of a hero living out those believes. — stoicHoneyBadger
I suppose secular humanism has something in common with a wide range of religious traditions, not just Christianity.3. The fact of the wrapper-story being factually correct or not has very little to do with whether the content is useful. After all, the 'secular humanism' Dawkins is promoting, is pretty much the same Christianity, just without the supernatural wrapper. — stoicHoneyBadger
This strikes me as symptomatic of a profoundly confused view of events in Afghanistan, of American foreign policy, and of the history of the past century or so, to say the least. I suspect it would take us too far off topic to clear this up here. I hope we can pursue the conversation without getting bogged down in such examples.4. Looking at Afghanistan, it looks like the Muslims are winning. We might laugh about their religion being archaic, but they aren't the ones hanging from the helicopters. ;) So their religion, while being incorrect to say the least, gave them thumos and cohesion to take over the country in a week, yet Christians and atheists, while being much more powerful, don't have the balls to do anything about it. — stoicHoneyBadger
What if it is? I suggest that in the long run, the aim of "giving people moral guidance, thymos, and social cohesion" is well-served by promoting the value of truthfulness, and is impaired by promoting bullshit, lies, delusion, literal belief in fiction -- and generally speaking, a culture of unreasonableness. — Cabbage Farmer
This strikes me as symptomatic of a profoundly confused view of events in Afghanistan, of American foreign policy, and of the history of the past century or so, to say the least. I suspect it would take us too far off topic to clear this up here. I hope we can pursue the conversation without getting bogged down in such examples. — Cabbage Farmer
As the quote suggests, one doesn't have to be a slip smacking sociopath to do evil - in some cases just follow the directions of your local preacher... — Tom Storm
Despite felling a bit loath to indicate a percieved error in someone I have come to consider my philosophical better, I must say, Ennui, that I think you wrong on this particular point. — Michael Zwingli
Fact and reality exist apart from subjective valuation and agreement, and are the philosopher's object of scrutiny. — Michael Zwingli
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.