I support the abolition of all religion. You however, only support the abolition of religions other than your own
IF
You think only "non-religious" systems should be tolerated.
THEN
You are denouncing others for openly doing what you inadvertantly do.
You seem to fancy your brand of intolerance somehow better because you take issue with even more groups (except yours). Wise up
I'm flattered that you spent time investigating me and sharing your suspicions. Here's a hot tip: If you really want to get someones perspective, ask questions without including personal attacks.
I am interested in the fiscal/monetary policies implemented by his regime.
Had I thougbt your question was asked in good faith I might have had more to say. (Smirks)
So you think white people should embrace race based tribalism and stop feeling responsible concerning the well being of those who aren't "us"?
BTW I have a controversial opinion about certain ethnic groups being considered rightful owners of certain portions of our earth. Might be interesting to debate.
A more reasonable description of knowledge is:
The information (however erroneous or useful) accessible to one or more agents.
Viewing knowledge as "justified true belief" sets us up to view portions of the information we manage as errorless and our thinking becomes more rigid and dogmatically absolutist. Instead of saying "I have justified true beliefs" its better to say "I think I have adequate information".
No. I believe those strories were what some people found inspiring and chose to canonize. My religion is syncretic and has been influenced by various faiths. I think yours is too, but you are so committed to anti-religion rhetoric it would be difficult to get you to admit it.
Not that I even buy in to viewing through the overly simplistic left/right lens, but I think many of the people that you say "support the Religion of Islam" arent concerned at all with doctrinal advocacy but with defense of a group of PEOPLE that is being demonized much like the Jews were in Nazi Germany
We recognize how genocide is worked up to througb rhetoric and we're trying to counter the trend
Tell you what ask any question you want about my religious beliefs. I will answer with complete candor. Stop any time you find a "delusional" belief. If you don't find any, I will consider the debate title/description disproven. You can continue thinking being opposed to religion in general is smart, and I will keep thinking it's smarter to take an "improve religion" approach.
I suppose earlier events in the chain of events that lead to the emergence of life involved much simpler chemical reactions that didn't involve greatly complex molecules. I suspect that some form of sustained combustion was the precursor to what later became metabolism.. I understand that I may have gone too far back for anyone to find my argument compelling, but do you really doubt that certain types of fire were intrinsically involved in what became life?
Since lying is a thing for you, Im not sure what nation you're from, but I do know you are part of an international multicultural group who is bent on spewing rhetoric that helps efforts to demonize "The West" Islam and whole nations so that violence and loss of freedom results. Are you proud of the role you play in drumming up mass hate?
I agree wholeheartedly with both posts on the other side. Though I think Conor would win under MMA rules, there is a very good chance he is going to really get clowned under boxing rules. If so I suspect it will be bad for MMA overall and good for boxing
Agreed, But I think even scientifically tested and corroborated assesments of all kinds are subjective by nature. What about thinking of information as "adequate vs inadequate"rather than "entirely correct vs entirely incorrect" ? can you see how the former doesn't pretend escaped subjectivity and avoids dogmatic absolutism?
I am trying to figure out why people are more apalled by rape than other types of harmful assaults. You say rapists should " be thrown in a whole, never to be heard from again". Do you think simple assault should carry just as harsh of a punishment? if not, why not?
To speak in a "politically correct" manner is to avoid culturally taboo statements that would result in more or less severe social consequences. Take for example Sam Harris. He talks about racial superiority in a manner that is sufficiently "politically correct" so you don't see a full scale character assasination effort being unleashed on him.
Do you now understand what politically correct means?
Since you say "It has nothing to do with sex at all. It is violence." I assume that you believe that someone who has committed assault with bodily injury should have the same restrictions that you think would be appropriate for a rapist right?
What about someone who just physically attacks someone for merely verbally insulting them. They break bones which require hospitalization. Do you think this type of assault merits the same severity of punishment that rape does? if not why not?
I think in general you have a good point. here, I think its worth making even more explicitly..
It's there. It is a static object
I struggled in vain to conceptualize truth as a static object.
that often doesn't get seen from all sides depending on the position of the person viewing it.
coceptually though, it usually connotes a completeness or perfectness of the relevant knowledge does it not?
But I don't think the concept of it is bad
I used "good" and "bad" mainly to make the the debate more provocative. My current opinion is that it's fine and good as an ideal to be pursued but gravely troublesome when considered attained.
In your cultural finger pointing debate what are you asking? It's really unclear.
Think of how anti-american extremism has come to be such a problem... Instead of keeping focus on specific people in america who IN SPITE OF the basic goodness of our culture, do terrible things. They blame the intrinsic nature of our culture and spread the idea that as a whole we are fundamentally a beligerent violence prone society. Conversely we americans have our own problem with demagogues doing the same thing. It's a vicious cycle that begets increasing levels of violent extremism. It's what I call cultural fingerpointing and we have our share of morons here in the US who try to present it as a morally courageous defense of free speech ala Being brave enough to "name the enemy".
A pride that would be severly misplaced if not shared by other members of the community
Not trying to offend, but the above is a poorly phrased argument.
http://www.macroevolution.net/
(An example of a theory that's not widely accepted due to such grounds)
That first comment really threw me off. I see, you are acknowledging that because of entrenched dogmatic certitude (supposed possesion of truth) within certain scientific communities, there are new possibly helpful insights that get pushed aside. Right?
It is full confidence (not leaving room for doubt) that makes our concept of truth or facts so dangerous. It is (I think) why the scientific method is peculiarly different from other technologies. Most essentially it's about seeking to falsify theories, to find imperfections in what should I argue be assumed to be incomplete knowledge, not "facts" or "truths"
I think children with different temperaments require variant approaches. Some children simply need to be allowed to follow their innate curiousity where others need more structure and discipline or they will end up seriously underdeveloped. I am sure our systematic cookie cutter approach is nowhere near flexible enough, and stoking kids innate curiosity is nowhere near the priority it should be.
Learning needs to be part of how we live..all day everyday.
I would not inhabit the earth were it not for every single other ancestor, and also a possibly innumerable sequence of other events. You have successfully argued against the concept of "discernable origin" itself.which invalidates the supposition this debate is based on....congratulations!
Quite the little temper tantrum. Boo-hoo the bad man made me cry, because he said the bollocks I spewed out was in fact bollocks, and not a brilliant insight.
If the only way you know how to challenge someone to deeper thinking is by finding an intellectual sounding way of saying nothing but "I call bullshit" , and you think me telling you to fuck off for just generally being a prick is a temper tantrum so be it. You aren't here to bitch slap so..
The level of incoherency you demonstrate, is only matched by the absurdity of your conjecture
If I had any reason to value your opinion (which I don't) that might sting. There are people I respect who thank me for being thought provoking.
.There was more rigor behind the platonic forms than this, and we know what happened to them.
Im looking for informal conversation here. Did you not read the debate description jackass? Plato was perhaps the most influential philosopher of all time. I have the capacity to admire him for being forthright and unafraid to articulate his understanding despite that it was ripe for critique and increased rigor. I am bright enough to recognize that insulting someone and really doing nothing more than calling bullshit doesnt make for an intellectually stimulating conversation. I can tell that all you are after is cheap oneupmanship so yeah...fuck off
Are you now going to 'imaginatively speculate' (aka pull out of your arse) on the origins of the universe for us. Perhaps it's like...I don't know 'water' right
I don't assume that reality began, I assume it always was and I am inclined to believe in multiple universes that explode then collapse in on themselves. You like to insult people bold enough to talk openly about their suspicions..maybe you get off on it...like I said go fuck yourself
And by the way fire creates heat as a by product, but heat is obviously not the same as fire. To attempt to confuse the 2 only demonstrates the extreme weakness of your position.
You thought I was trying to say fire and heat were the same thing, or confuse the two...A testament more to your poor reading skills
Have a nice day.
aw shucks thanks!
Though religion is a social system through which morality is instilled, I don't believe al such social systems are religion.
I suggest we try to articulate how we agree, then use this as common ground for discussion going forward
Would you agree that any moral reasoning must appeal to some sense of a "greater good" ?
True. God concepts have been successfully utilized to subvert tyrants and increase freedom. But I don't believe this was the initial intent.
I strongly suspect that our ability to carry out simulated dialogs with mentally generated personality complexes has had no small role in the development of moral systems, what say you?
While your view of religion is broad, my view of morality is broad. So much so that I consider the question of ought to always be fundamentally a moral question. Even when considering choice of moral systems.
again, I think we ought to see how much common ground we can establish before we focus on where our perspectives differ. Not just you and I in this discussion but people in general. Especially when comparing moral systems.
Could we agree that all systems of morality require the moral agent to:
1. envision future conditions they desire/desire to avoid
2. view their own actions or inactions as effecting the liklihood of the realization of these desires
I think that when religious people involve themselves in their religion they feel connected to God, and so they feel they are part of something bigger. This sense feels like an end in itself for them, not a means to some other material end.
Do you suppose that perhaps people in general have these kind of experiences and merely favor different ways of explaining them, or do you think the kind of experiences you are talking about are truly unique to this "religious" class of people?
It has been a while since I read them. I like Haidt's basic theory, and he does a very good job of supporting it, but some of his experiments seem to lack rigor or nuance. I may be misremembering.
I like Haris' basic premise, that objective morality is a secular notion, but I think he over-applies it. Human morality evolved in humans for humans. While cruelty to animals can be seen as reflecting the quality of the person doing it (one who fails to appreciate the import of suffering) and can thus hold appropriate moral sanctions, it is a mistake to put other animals value on par with humans. I may have the same sense of moral indignation at animal cruelty as Harris, but for different reasons.
It is a mistake for him to claim an evolved human moral capacity requires a standard based around a general ability to suffer. Especially if we someday find that plants somehow suffer in some way. Human flourishing is not the same as general reduction of all suffering (for all life). And the difference could have important long run effects.
You can be critical of those you admire. I admire you for that. In the interest of keeping this conversation from getting overly bloated, I wish to nip this here and bring it up later after I read Haidt's book.
In the cycle of morality and law in a free country, morality is first, it is the driver. Though neither are completely static
Can you see how I think precedence is as difficult to establish here as with the "chicken/egg" conundrum?
How can a Legislature divorce itself from the base reasoning of laws it intends to create?
Perhaps by establishing the liberty to independently formulate ones own moral epistemology as a primary protected right...
What does post-secularism look like?
overt or covert collapse of the distinction between government and religion. Rather than calling it government imposed religion, religion would be narrowly defined in a manner similar to how you define it which would allow for a government imposed "moral philosophy". It would look like a theocracy hidden by careful use of words that don't reference "religious" (as you understand it) issues.
I think that is a pretty good argument. However, don't you think that some form of sustained chemical combustion wherin certain chemicals are broken down and new, increasingly complex chemicals are formed in areas peripheral to the primary source of sustained energy might be key? I would agree that life would be very unlikely to develop where the highest temperature regions are, for reasons you stated, but it seems to me that the variety of reactions possible in the regions where both heating and cooling occur would allow for some amazingly complex chemicals to form given enough time.
This sort of intuitive reasoning by analogy is not useful nor productive.
To downplay the role of imaginative speculation, coupled with observation of seemingly analougous behaviors between various "living" and "non-living" phenomena in the initiation of theories of abiogenesis is even less useful and productive than my musings.
The boundaries between life and non life are being researched.
nevermind the difficulty clearly distiguishing between them either. If certain types of people see an opportunity to insult an idea rather than flesh it out through conversation, they will jump on it. I am glad Im not one of these types of people.
Whilst that research is interesting and to some degree speculative, none of it involves looking at the role 'fire' played. Heat may be involved in the chemical processes, but fire would break the chemical bonds necessary to form the requisite molecules.
Its not absurd to see heat playing an integral role, but fire, yeah thats just crazy talk. Heat and fire have nothing to do with one another. (sarcasm) That metabolism involves the -burning- of calories and there is a "metabolism first" school of thought among theorists just makes my line of thinking even more subject to ridicule.
t amazes me that someone can think they can get a direct, unmediated perspective into the universe (in this case life in the universe), instead of knuckling down and producing some actual repeatable, testable results.
You think I don't value scientific methods because I allow myself to speculate according to my own informal observations? I am fighting the urge to tell someone to go fuck themselves...
How do you propose to test this conjecture?
through scientific experimentation.
Is it to look at fire and go "oooh it looks like life", end of test! Don't expect anyone to be convinced. The earlier post was right, this IS absurd.
Nevermind...go fuck yourself
Sad truth is that in order to get any response at all we have to frame our debates as attacks. You have to provoke an emotional response and hope for a transition to nuanced, well reasoned engagement which is the rare thing I presume we are both after.
maybe next time :)
Being regressive and ignorant are presented in your debate title as being caused by being religious. If thats not enough for me to make the assumption that you view being religious as a less intelligent choice...my bad
If I could have restrained myself we might have had an interesting discussion.
i didn't say it was but that's not addressing what I asked
Talking about different peoples versions of desireable progress is SO on point.
you seem to have an axe to grind , where did i state Christians were stupid ?
Do you, or do you not think that "being religious" is a mark of human stupidity? I dont want to misrepresent you. But I can show you what leads me to believe you do. I'd rather dig in to the subject of which ideas of progress ought to be rejected/adopted
I stated religions by nature are regressive and divisive so have you a counter or not ?
They have their own version of desireable progress, and dont find the others on offer more appealing.
I would appreciate if you didn't tell me what you think I said as opposed to making something up
If I misrepresent you, you may simply clarify. Do you think religious people as a class are less intelligent than non-religious people? If you answer yes, then I have not misrepresented you
Should I take this to mean that you believe animals who express rudimentary morality are also engaged in religion?
in a rudimentary sense, yes. Though their "social systems by which moral values are instilled" (which is what I think religions are) are not as developed as ours, they serve the same function.
After considering this, I think it is unlikely. Not only have we had tyrants more often than not in human history, but the representatives of God have often been the tyrants.
In thinking of how tyrannical authority figures are established as morally authoritative, it seems to me that gods allow for a kind of subversion of this power dynamic. Instead of putting another person in the position of "most high" we can suppose the existence of an invincible moral authority that supercedes human autbority entirely. While I admit it's not fool proof (it can be, and often enough is itself subverted by those appointed as intermediaries) it's interesfing to think about in response to the tough question of WHOSE moral system should be given the highest regard.
Human morality makes more use of shame and guilt than of force or scary stories.
Depends on the human(s) in question I suppose. But that's beside the point.
I’ve never read Hitchen’s perspective on this. If it is in line with my perspective, I am likely to take a somewhat softer position concerning religion.
If I didn't seperate superstitious gullibility from religion (which I didn't for a good long while), I would take a harder position on religion.
Sometimes. I also think people are religious because they feel they are interacting with the divine. Not for favor or specific gain so much as for perceived natural well-being that comes with knowing a properly ordered universe
Like being religious in the Einsteinian sense?
This is a distinction I haven’t considered in any detail
.............(seems ripe for a seperate discussion)
Science is a method to help us know what is. My point is that the strict separation between “is” and “ought” is an illusion. The field of medicine is a highly scientific one. We use medical science to know what is, so that we can know what we ought to prescribe. This need not be limited to medicine, so long as the same understanding of fallibility is afforded to other areas of science as well. The scientific method doesn’t give us the best, but it gives us something better.
At the moment I dont find anything objectionable with your view as expressed here. But with Sam Harris' similar view, I do...This subject is ripe for a seperate discussion as well though.
I thoroughly enjoyed this book as well as Sam Harris’s. Harris had Haidt on his podcast for an interview which was also very interesting.
I will read it, and listen to the podcast, tell you what I think. Thanks for the recommendation. In the mean time you have any points of contention with either Haidt's "The Righteous Mind" or Harris' "The Moral Landscape" or do you agree wholeheartedly with what's expressed in them?
That kind of legislation would disturb me, primarily because in a free country, morality drives legislation, not vice versa.
Just little earlier in this conversation you said that " I think that the institution of criminal justice wherein crime is punished, is state sanctioned moral indoctrination", can you understand how that seems contradictory to me, and maybe help clear up my misunderstanding of your view?
It’s the difference between government and tyranny. I would, however, approve of a high school level criminal justice class that teaches the basics of criminal law, to include a summary of the reasoning behind our laws. I think this kind of class is a good idea, I don’t think it should be a government mandate.
This, in my view speaks to the issue of freedom of religion. The only way I can see a government honoring this value, this (what I consider) sacred right, is to divorce itself from the base reasoning and simply enforce the shared conclusions that those with differing moral epistemologies agree on. I have some concern that I may just be grasping at straws, trying to hold on to one of my most cherished myths. I fear postsecularism.
Thanks again for the time you take to spar with me.
The best advice I've heard is to concern yourself with helping others. Take your focus off of what troubles you, and assist others with their troubles. Lose yourself in the service of others as the cliche goes. Of course if things are really so bad that this isn't an option...excons advice "get a dog" seems pretty good. If you can't love and be loved you're fucked.
Nice of you to drop in BTW :)
No. But the chosen strategy and tactics of conducting the war on terror have been collosal failures. It's not a mistaken aim to shape our policy around the ideal of reducing terrorist activity, but the incompetence of policy makers should be abudantly clear by now since the net result of our supposed "anti terror" policies has been a massive increase in terrorism.
I don’t believe we agree on the definition of religion. This would have to be rectified before can discuss or agree on more complex matters concerning religion
This sort of barrier plagues much discussion concerning this topic yet folks continue talking past each other. I appreciate your recognition of the barrier.
Some animals express rudimentary morality, but there is no reason to believe this is accompanied by religion.
Unless of course you view religion as being more primarily about moral alliances than "spiritual" alliances. As a side note I would grant that moral alliances preceded spiritual rituals. Also you might consider that perhaps spirituality and supposing the existence of superhuman immortal moral authorities was an innovation meant to be a bulwark against too much moral authority being vested in dominant regimes which seem to reliably become tyrannical.
I don’t. Religion is a moral enterprise among other things. While religion is a moral enterprise, not all instances of moral expression are religious. Chimps don’t like to be cheated out of their fair share, but they don’t condemn to hell cheaters. They bite them.
Surely the more primative the moral training system, the more it relies on brute force. But whether such systems make use of brute force, or spooky storytelling doesnt change their essential function.
Human specialty is pattern seeking. We see patterns and group things accordingly. We even see patterns where no true pattern exists. We see causation where there is only correlation or even mere coincidence. We are also information sponges. We need to know how things work. We are highly active pattern seekers and highly active information seekers. When something is missing from the pattern of the universe, when there is a missing cause, we make up stories to fill in the gap. We used to make up pretty fantastic stories that became myths. Now we attempt to come up with the most reasonable story and we call it a theory.
This seems in line with Hitchen's view of religion as "our first and therefore worst" attempt at the sciences. Do you agree with that summarization?
Spirit, in the religious sense, is the unseen, un-sensed force that fills in the gaps if that which is unknown or unknowable and can either be appealed to or interacted with. All religions have rituals concerning matters of spirit. Not all institutions of ritual are concerned with matters of spirit, thus not all institutions of ritual are religious.
So in your view, to "be religious" is to conduct rituals in hopes of thereby influencing the "mysterious powers that be" (aka spiritual forces) to act in ones favor?
There are potential serious problems with this as humans are fallible. It was supposed science that gave us eugenics and ultimately the holocaust.
I am.happy to read this acknowledgement
However, we can attempt to arrive at proper moral concepts via reason, or via faith. History indicates that reason is a better (though imperfect) option.
It seems to me that "possibly misplaced faith" is not something we can avoid and that viewing knowledge as "justified true belief" rather than "our strongest though possibly faulty certainties" is the most dangerous kind of faith.
There are ways to reduce the problems associated with scientific moral prescriptions. For example, science could focus on that which is wrong, that we may avoid it, rather than which is right, that we are compelled to do it. This would maximize freedom while reducing the harms of the immoral. Science should not undervalue the efficacy of tradition. If a traditional moral value is not detrimental, it should not be addressed. In this way, morality will continue to evolve naturally and potentially beneficial moral behaviors, previously unconsidered, can still arise
I think we should be careful to speak of science strictly as a method. Science doesnt "make prescriptions" or "have a focus". Individuals and groups with agendas do.
Morality is instilled based on more than this. The “Moral Foundations” Theory, put forward by Jonathan Haidt and detailed in his book “The Rightious Mind”, provides an evolutionary foundation for moral intuitions that includes socially instilled values, but relies on a wider range of environmental pressures as well. If all moral intuitions come down to Care, Fairness, Loyalty, Authority, or Sanctity; then social consequences are not sufficient to explain them all.
Perhaps not sufficiently specific, but I think it works for an overarching categorical. Do you think the book shares valuable insights? Perhaps I will read it..
Even if we were to do away with religion, we would not do away with the human qualities that provide such fervor currently held for religion, nor the qualities that lead to the most detrimental of religious behaviors.
You "do away" with religion and you get Religion 2.X
I think that the institution of criminal justice wherein crime is punished, is state sanctioned moral indoctrination.
In a sense I agree, except I think in America, with freedom of religion enshrined in our constitution , inculcation of basic moral reasoning is not undertaken programatically by the state. It is instead left up to individual families to choose or formulate their own such programs, or disregard them altogether if they wish. Supposing our government decreed through legislation that all new citizens and children were by law required to undergo a supposedly non-religious "philosophical and moral foundations" program which not only simply trained them in how to comply with the law, but also to be versed in officially approved narratives concerning epistemologically why the laws ought to be obeyed. So long as religious considerations (as you understand them) were carefully left out of the language used, would such legislation disturb your secular sensibilities in any way?
I think it is based on mostly shared moral values that do not rely on one’s religion and is thus secular. It has served to draw more of a distinction between law and religion.
The idea of secularism, separating government from religion, is the idea that our institutions need not rely on an appeal to spiritual or mystical authority. A secular government, basing it’s laws on generally shared values, can regulate the interactions between people of all faiths (or no faith) without reference to any particular one. If your definition of religion requires you to consider secular institutions indistinguishable from religious institutions, then secularism is the religion that includes all religions (or absence thereof) and imposes no specific spiritual ritualism.
Thank you for your direct answer and your other carefully thought out responses. Even taking the time to respect my point of view though we differ..
where? cite
Personal introspection in prison, and just generally not wanting to look back at the end of my life ashamed of the person I was.
the only thing you prove with this is your unintelligence.
I won't lose any sleep if you (or people on the internet) think of me as unintelligent. I am not ashamed of who I am despite your efforts
have you searched anything to prove the bible especially new testament is a myth?
And anything i don't mean the bullshit the illiterate richard dawkins spews about christianity.
Archaelogical and historical facts outside the bible.
I start with the assumption that historical accounts in general are subject to human error, but historical veracity isnt necessary for stories to inspire people. Please understand by "mythos" I dont mean "false story".
That was one of the most powerful testimonies of the redemtive power of the Christian narrative that I have ever had the pleasure of hearing.I understand why he believes that these kind of awsome transformations only come through belief in these stories, and though I surely wouldn't want to disrupt anyones journey toward decency, sanity, and sincere concern for the well-being of anyone, I can personally testify that transformation similar to what he described can happen without buying in to that mythos.
a being can't be all powerful or all knowing in an infinite reality, only most powerful or knowledgeable within its specific domain.However powerful a being may be, in an infinite really, they couldnt even imagine a fraction of whats possible, because there isnt a totality.
Working from the assumption that reality is infinite, no being could completely spread throughout it or control it in a complete manner. It might be more powerful than any other being in its vicinity, but there would be no way of knowing if even greater beings might exist beyond the scope of its domain.
if so why couldnt these beings be regularly surpassing one another in terms of who is currently most powerful? With infinite opportunity for gains in knowledge and power how can anyone be all powerful or all knowing? "all" could only apply to a finite domain..wouldnt you agree?
Indeed much of early philosophy was simply sophisticated interpretations of religion. Ultimately, things can change enough that they are thoroughly different from their origins. Science used to be philosophy, for example.
the deeper and further back you look the more you realize we are talking about branches of the same tree with all of these things (Morality, Religion, Law). To say that science was once philosophy (ie is no longer) is more misleading than to say science springs from philosophy. Science is a rigorous methodical form of knowledge auditing, and is in and of itself morally neutral. As a method it can be used to test truth claims of any sort including moral truth claims but science (Application of the scientific method) isnt about the kind of truth claims it tests.
Science isnt about skeptically subjecting the axioms upon which it is based to epistemological scrutiny, philosophy is. Philosophy is about examining any and every position we hold to skeptical scrutiny, science isnt like that, morality isnt like that, religion isnt like that.
science, religion, morality and law are about holding a cluster of positions and working from them. They are the result of multiple deep convictions.
It seems we are already in agreement about how law relates to morality, but the nature of religion and how it relates to these is still a matter of contention. Now Science and philosophy are in the mix and I must say discussing how all these relate is deeply interesting to me.
Note that in my definition of morality I included implicit or explicit. The predecessors to humanity had implicit morality. It was not a conceptualized explicit notion of right and wrong, but rather an emotional sense of moral indignation when a wrong has occurred. Even chimps have a sense of fairness. For this reason, I say that morality preceded the rest.
Where rudimentary morality exists, along with it is a rudimentary form of religion. Wondering which came first is like wondering: "which came first, the chicken or the egg?"
I take no issue with your view that morality still exists even if only implicitly. I agree with you. Religions whatever their faults in my view are moral enterprises from which our legal traditions have sprung. Do you really disagree?
Social phenomenon are typically more complex than a single element. I believe that myths and legends serve as the stage upon which religions are created, but that they do not qualify as more than a cultural oral tradition unless they are accompanied by ritual. Even then, as before, I am inclined to include a spiritual element to the ritual before it becomes religious in nature, as opposed to other less constraining cultural behaviors
But what is the motivation for creating these myths, and conducting these rituals? You are going to have to explain spirituality (have fun with that) before I can understand how you view it as essential to religion.
I don’t believe that all elements of morality can be reduced to pleasing the most powerful, with or without god. While some aspects of morality can reduce to this, such as respect for authority, not all aspects qualify. Moral foundations theory includes five elements; Care, Fairness, Loyalty, Authority, and Sanctity
Suppose we thought (like Sam Harris argues in his book: "The Moral Landscape" for instance) that "the consensus of the scientific community" should serve as the ultimate arbiter or authority concerning what should be considered moral vs immoral. Can you see any problem with this?
You’ll have to support this statement a little more. As it stands I have proposed that morality came first. Religion was used to explain and develop moral intuitions that previously existed. It would seem that approaching those moral intuitions in a new way, rather than with religion, is similar to approaching the origin of humanity in a new way, rather than religion.
Morality was not formed in an asocial manner. Morality is based on socially instilled fear of negative future consequences.
As soon as our language was developed enough to issue warnings to new generations about how certain types of behavior would lead to undesirable consequences our programs of moral instruction began. These programs were administered crudely at first by the most powerful authority figures in the group. As our use of language devolped, reasoning developed along with it and questions like "why shouldn't I just take what I want?" surely arose. The first answers to questions like this were probably centered around fear of retaliation and you can bet that the stronger and more powerful a person or group became, the less convincing those reasons became. The more thoughtful class could see that a future where morals are brutality based would be bleak indeed. They feared this kind of future and contrived a means of instilling fear (for moral reasons) without resorting to brutality. It was state of the art for their time, and the results were very impressive. It would be interesting to see, what improvements we could make should the most thoughtful class of today diligently undertake such a task. Before that can happen though I think some myths about the nature of religion need to be dispelled. Some very smart people still think doing away with religion is a wiser aim than improving it.
What do you suppose is the current, secular system wherein you will be put in a cage if you breach certain moral standards? Moral sanctions against stealing are both religious and secular.
Do you get annoyed when you ask someone what they think and instead of telling you, they just ask what you think? I think secularism is based on a very popular misunderstanding of what religion is.
Only if you don’t allow for a spiritual element when defining religion.
I have yet to read a definition or explantation of spirituality that I find logically sound, so I can't build my understanding of other words on it.
Morality is a code of conduct, whether implicit or explicit
granted
Law is the formal, explicit codification of morality with a statement of consequences for a given breach.
granted
Religion is primitive philosophy
if that's true, then conversely this would mean philosophy is "modern religion".
Morality precedes the rest as it has been with us the longest.
You think we conceptualized "morally right vs morally wrong" before "wise vs unwise"? I dont think it's particularly wise to seperate the two, though I will grant that legislation came afterward.
As humanity developed, myths and legends used to fill in the holes of our knowledge were also used to articulate moral intuitions. These myths and legends were the foundation of religions and served as a codification of morals held (law). Thus, religion and law were once indistinguishable. To speak of the law was to speak of moral edicts according to a god or gods. When a ruler changed a law, he heard the voice of god (or got the approval of his holy class).
Here you seem to recognize religion as a (albeit somewhat misguided) moral endeavor shaped by a class of highly regarded storytellers (not as ritual based like you assert elsewhere). Have you given any thought to how without a robust god concept, morality can be reduced (for many) to a matter of acting in a way that pleases the most powerful person(s) at any given time?
As education and literacy became more common, and esoteric knowledge became more broadly known, small groups and individuals developed their own ideas about religion. Philosophers began to understand the value of morality as independent from religion (though not usually from God).
Supposing that morality exists independently from the social systems through which morals are cultivated (religions) is not a form of new philospophical enlightenment but pseudo-intellectual delusion. Being so metaphorically challenged that one cannot make the connection between "theology" and "ruling logic" isnt any kind of advancement either
resistance to viewing religion and even god concepts as things that evolve along with us, actually retards their development.
Similarly, the ruling class recognized that it’s laws had to be secular if they were to encompass people with differing religious views. Slowly, laws and legal systems were separated from religion, though not from fundamental morality. Which is approximately where we stand today.
Do you think that state sanctioned moral indoctrination would futher seperate laws and legal systems from religion, dissolve the distinction between them, or have no effect ?
To summarize, humanity has always had morality. We incorporated morality into our primitive philosophies of religion which served as law. We removed religion, but not morality, from law.
We have always grouped up according to shared moral principles (articulate or not) this is the nature of religion and no laws have or ever will be enacted without essentially the same kind of unity. If religion has been removed, it was a mere semantic maneuver.
You can conjure an image in your mind, that represents (to you) something, even a sound, smell, taste, a proposition...nothing is off limits, nothing one might suppose is unimagineable.
What argument to the contrary was most convincing?
The focus on ritual is interesting. Shared "reverence rituals" (spiritual is way too vague for me) being what "makes a religion" is a logically tenable view as far as I can tell.
I'd like to critique YOUR response to this debate topic., :)
No, it isn't. It carries no genetic material that divides, and there are no generations of it
That doesnt mean that it wasnt essential to the chain of events that eventually developed in to life
However, for your second question, though no scientist has ever put the absurd idea forward, it is originally that of Heraclitus.
Lots of ideas are first thought absurd, and later seen as obvious. Offer up your musings about what you think life evolved from and let's see how absurd your ideas are.
It's my pleasure.look forward to reading your arguments.
I suppose, (along with scientists who theorize about what sort of conditions must have preceeded life) that there must have been something that behaved much like life that preceded life. What ever this event complex was, I refer to as proto-life.
Can you please define "value" in regards to this discussion in precise terms
To value = To attend to situational developments with the aim of preserving or attaining desireable things and/or outcomes
Your two qualifying examples were both based on immediate, neutral observation.
Value beliefs are not neutral. And I believe previously in this thread I was careful to distinguish the difference between beliefs about how things simply are and beliefs concerning how we want things to turn out.
Given that they consider themselves a religion, do you think this is because: they don't really understand what religion is, or they are dishonestly using the term for ulterior motives, or what reasons could you imagine that they would think they are appropriately and legally classified as a religion?
