Some people wonder why Americans are so religious. (They are compared to Europe, especially). I would say it is (at least to some extent) BECAUSE there has been so much splintering. Every time a group divides, it is re-energized. — Bitter Crank
There was quite a bit of competition: Baptists vs. Methodists; Lutherans vs. Catholics; Presbyterians vs. Congregationalists, etc. and not just good-natured competition. — Bitter Crank
Carl Schmitt asserted that "All significant concepts in the modern theory of the state are secularized theological concepts"
— Cavacava
AT LAST!!! The occasion where one of my favorite quotes (since 1983) is appropriate: "Everything begins in mysticism and ends in politics." Charles Peguy (a late 19th century early 20th century Frenchman).
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
WikipediaNo court created by Act of Congress shall have any jurisdiction, and the Supreme Court shall have no appellate jurisdiction, to hear or decide any question pertaining to the interpretation of, or the validity under the Constitution of, section 1738C or this section.
The difference is knowledge versus practice. This is where religious life comes into play. — Noble Dust
There is a difference between "knowing", or being able to "distinguish right and wrong" in a more and more nuanced way, versus applying that knowledge towards an everyday practice. You seem to assume that the two are interchangeable. This is actually classic Biblical wisdom; it's "head knowledge versus heart knowledge" (ugh, what a gross phrase, yet so true). Practice means consciously applying the actual concepts; things like charity, unconditional love, meditation — Noble Dust
This is what I mean by "moral evolution of the inner life of the individual". What I mean is: There is not an evolution of more and more people applying the more and more nuanced moral concepts we have to their everyday practice. What we have instead is that the general knowledge of moral problems becomes more and more nuanced over time, but this has nothing to say about the actual application of that knowledge by individuals to their lives. — Noble Dust
In fact, if anything, the ever-increasing complexity of moral problems just serves to confound the average person, leaving them to fall back on whatever political or religious sentiment is convenient and sufficient enough to stay the tide of overwhelming moral dilemmas that our current world consists of. This is ultimately not about abstract philosophy; it's about personal practice. Morals always ultimately come down to this: the individual person. Conceptions of morality that don't revolve around the individual de-humanize the individual, which is to say that they de-humanize humanity itself. — Noble Dust
This is a classic conflation of survival with moral good. Survival is a mechanism of material evolution; taking this mechanism and applying it to the realm of morals is a misapplication, and this is why: To assume that morals are a function of survival undermines evolution itself; so if evolution is based on change, then there will be a change from survival to something else. Morals are a function of that new form of change, and we live in that world now. Our evolution is no longer based on survival. — Noble Dust
Eh, what you say about gaining energy through forming a new denomination is undoubtedly true, but there are other reasons America is so Christian. And as far as ethnic sects of the same denomination of Christianity within America, those existed because of immigration; early immigrants stuck together with those of their same race; naturally their unique form of the faith remained in tact while those close-knit communities did so. Once those ethnic communities began to splinter, the ethnic sects of the denominations began to blur. — Noble Dust
Your support for this assertion makes no sense to me. How would a relationship between morality and survival undermine evolution itself? — Metaphysician Undercover
I have no beef with entomology or evolution, but I refuse to admit that they teach me much about ethics. Consider the fact that human action ranges to the extremes. People can perform extraordinary acts of altruism, including kindness toward other species — or they can utterly fail to be altruistic, even toward their own children. So whatever tendencies we may have inherited leave ample room for variation; our choices will determine which end of the spectrum we approach. This is where ethical discourse comes in — not in explaining how we’re “built,” but in deliberating on our own future acts. Should I cheat on this test? Should I give this stranger a ride? Knowing how my selfish and altruistic feelings evolved doesn’t help me decide at all. Most, though not all, moral codes advise me to cultivate altruism. But since the human race has evolved to be capable of a wide range of both selfish and altruistic behavior, there is no reason to say that altruism is superior to selfishness in any biological sense.
Even with these declines, however, religion and religious belief and activity is much higher than in Europe. "The Church" is in no danger of disappearing. — Bitter Crank
The thing that I dislike about "spiritualism" is that it is too individualized (to suit whatever idiosyncrasies happen to be in play) and it's way too private (related to too individualized). — Bitter Crank
The main thrust of that argument is that “modernity has plunged religion into a very specific crisis” characterized above all by pluralism. It has done so primarily by forcing men to choose beliefs to which they had previously been consigned by fate. Less and less is dictated by necessity; more and more becomes a matter for questioning. In terms of belief, this means that the faith of one’s fathers must yield to one’s “religious preference.” At the same time, the traditional reasons for choosing one religion over another—or any religion at all—are gravely undermined. By “the heretical imperative” Berger means this radical necessity to choose. “A hareisis originally meant, quite simply, the taking of a choice.” He tries to transfigure the necessity of choice into the virtue of choice as well as to articulate the various possible ways of choosing.
At this point difficulties begin to appear. One does not choose religion as such but a particular religion. Furthermore, it is not clear what the relation is between the utility—if any—of a religion and its truth—if any. Finally, it is not even all that clear what a religion is since everything from Communism to commercialism has been called one. Berger attempts to circumvent such complications by having recourse to the empirical evidence of human experience. He is thus led to define religion as the “human attitude that conceives of the cosmos (including the supernatural) as a sacred order.” 1
many of my early encounters were via hallucinogens — Wayfarer
I agree with Noble Dust. It's easy to append the term 'evolution' to everything nowadays, and commonplace to ascribe to 'evolution' what was previously ascribed to 'divine will'. I've been arguing a related argument on this forum all along - that subordinating morality to evolution reduces it to a mere adaption, like a tooth or claw or peacock's tail. There's a very good essay on this called Anything But Human by Richard Polt. — Wayfarer
How would a relationship between morality and survival undermine evolution itself? — Metaphysician Undercover
. Can we look at morality as an instance, an example, of evolution? If so, then since the individual's will is paramount in morality, then we'd have to adapt our concept of evolution to allow for the role of the will of the individual. — Metaphysician Undercover
I think evolution is a biological theory. It is about 'how species evolve'. The fact that it has now become a de facto 'theory of everything' is, in my view, a cultural defect and not a philosophy at all. I know evolution occured, in fact sometimes i sense a strong connection with my ancient forbears. But I think trying to combine biological evolution and ethical philosophy is fraught with many problems. — Wayfarer
But, it's got nothing to do with evolution, per se. If I wanted to study evolution, I would enroll in biology, to start with, and then study all the requisite disciplines - geology, biology, and the rest. As I mentioned, that is not what I studied, and I don't see how it's relevant. — Wayfarer
Since morality, as a property of living beings, appears to be exclusive to human beings, then how can we account for its coming into being except through evolution? Therefore morality itself cannot be that special property which is not a product of evolution. — Metaphysician Undercover
I suppose, to put it in a way that is compatible with the scientific view - when h. sapiens evolved to a certain point, then s/he is no longer determined by purely biological factors. At that point we transcend the merely biological. That, I think, is the real meaning of the myth of 'the fall' - that at the point where humans become self-conscious, self-aware, capable of making judgements of 'good and evil' (the fruit of the tree of good and evil), then at that point moral decisions become necessary, and they're no longer governed by purely biological forces. — Wayfarer
But don't you believe that not just human beings, but all living creatures have a soul, and therefore all these creatures "transcend the merely biological"? — Metaphysician Undercover
The feeling of guilt comes from realizing I should have done otherwise. And since human beings will always make mistakes we will always be haunted by guilt. — Metaphysician Undercover
"Deep within his conscience man discovers a law which he has not laid upon himself but which he must obey. Its voice, ever calling him to love and to do what is good and to avoid evil, sounds in his heart at the right moment. . . . For man has in his heart a law inscribed by God. . . . His conscience is man's most secret core and his sanctuary. There he is alone with God whose voice echoes in his depths.
If you mean the idea that conscience is our knowledge of God's law, then I think you're right, and I think the decline of such ideas is a reason for rejoicing.Such ideas are generally not much recognised nowadays. — Wayfarer
What do you make of Sartre's writings on this, such as the young French man torn over whether to join the resistance or stay and look after his mother? — andrewk
If you mean the idea that conscience is our knowledge of God's law, then I think you're right, and I think the decline of such ideas is a reason for rejoicing. — andrewk
How would a relationship between morality and survival undermine evolution itself? — Metaphysician Undercover
To clarify, I said that if morals are a function of evolution, then this would undermine evolution. So not just any relationship, but a relationship of morals being a function of evolution. — Noble Dust
The assumption you're making, thanks to our fixation on Darwin still, is that "survival" is a constant. — Noble Dust
Why is survival a constant, rather than a function that is subject to the same change? — Noble Dust
No, I don't believe that. I don't believe anyone 'has' a soul. If the word has meaning (and it's an 'if'), it's because it refers to the totality of the being - not simply the mind, personality, physique, but the whole being. That is what I take 'soul' to mean. — Wayfarer
I must admit, I had difficulty with this, and had to reread numerous times, because "function of" may be taken in numerous ways. — Metaphysician Undercover
subordinating morality to evolution reduces it to a mere adaption, like a tooth or claw or peacock's tail — Wayfarer
Clearly I'm not assuming survival as a constant. — Metaphysician Undercover
And then, taking it a step further, I was suggesting that maybe morality and survival are stages, if you will, along the course of evolution. It's an idea that I'm toying with, that I haven't fleshed out. Basically, morality supersedes survival in the evolutionary process. Maybe with other steps in between, maybe not. I hope that at least makes more sense?
I'm not a very discursive thinker, so I seem to have trouble communicating my ideas to people like you who have a much stronger command of reason and logic — Noble Dust
And then, taking it a step further, I was suggesting that maybe morality and survival are stages, if you will, along the course of evolution. It's an idea that I'm toying with, that I haven't fleshed out. Basically, morality supersedes survival in the evolutionary process. Maybe with other steps in between, maybe not. I hope that at least makes more sense? — Noble Dust
What I'm seeing is this: there is a tendency to try to understand morality through the lens of evolutionary survival. I think that's incorrect. I see this more in the general population, not necessarily in a philosophical realm as much (other than the new atheists, although they're of course not actual philosophers). — Noble Dust
I shouldn't have assumed this. But it's certainly something I see from others. But, what do you see as the purpose of evolution? Is there a telos? If not, then who cares? What's the point? — Noble Dust
How could it makes sense that morality could supersede survival? Since we all die, and there is a possibility that life may be eradicated from earth, we haven't yet achieved survival. — Metaphysician Undercover
If we instil morality as the goal or purpose, then how can we ensure that this morality would produce survival? — Metaphysician Undercover
In relation to being in general, don't you think that to be alive is of a higher priority than to be moral. Morality exists as a hierarchy of values, as Aristotle says, one thing is for the sake of another, which is for the sake of something further, etc., until we reach the highest good. But morality is the means by which we reach the good, it relates to the actions, the means to the end, it isn't the good which is sought. So morality must be for the sake of some higher good. — Metaphysician Undercover
Notice that we all think in a different way, you, me Wayfarer, and others, yet we always seem assume that there is a way of the general population. — Metaphysician Undercover
The differences are what makes us individuals, yet we always assume that there is something which unites us as "the same". We take this for granted, that we are of the same species, that we follow the same cultural norms, but how do we really justify this? Within the same species, there are different cultures. Within the same culture, people think in different ways. Isn't there a reason why we try to be like others? — Metaphysician Undercover
how can you ask me what's the purpose of evolution? — Metaphysician Undercover
Don't you think that survival is very important? — Metaphysician Undercover
Because of the possibility of life after death. — Noble Dust
Also, it sounds like you're equating "survival" with something like "ultimate survival" here. Of course we've "achieved survival". We still exist as a species. We achieve survival every day. — Noble Dust
So do you consider survival more important than achieving the highest good? — Noble Dust
Is this a continuation of the argument you start at the beginning of that paragraph? I can't really tell; it doesn't make much sense to me in relation to what you initially said. For instance, you seem to be conflating being "of the same species" with "following[ing] the same cultural norms". But then almost immediately you say "Within the same species, there are different cultures." — Noble Dust
It's important in the same way that a car engine is important. It gets me from A to B. But it's not the purpose of my trip. — Noble Dust
Life after death is contradictory, unless we remove the individuality of living. — Metaphysician Undercover
If we remove the individual, to say that life continues, then we don't have any real grounding for the concept of "life", because we get a nonsense notion of life, without an individual being which is living. — Metaphysician Undercover
This is the category error which I was trying to point out. A species is not a living being. It doesn't make sense to say that the species exists as a thing, because it is not a living being, it is an abstraction. — Metaphysician Undercover
I haven't yet seen good support for your separation between "survival" and "highest good". To me, I see no reason yet why survival should not be the highest good. — Metaphysician Undercover
There is no such particular, individual, existing thing as the norms of a culture, nor is there any such particular individual existing thing as a species. These are concepts, abstractions. — Metaphysician Undercover
You don't seem to appreciate the true meaning of "survive". You put survival into the past, to say "I have survived, therefore I have fulfilled my desire to survive". — Metaphysician Undercover
Life after death is contradictory, unless we remove the individuality of living. — Metaphysician Undercover
You seem to believe that there is something more important to your life than actually living. What could that possibly be? Being alive is necessary for you to do anything, so how could anything be more important than this? Therefore being alive (and hence survival) is of the highest importance, because anything else which you might do, including being moral, is dependent on this, being alive. — Metaphysician Undercover
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.